Are People Obligated to Fight Evil if they Have the Ability to do So - Essay Example

Are people obligated to fight evil if they have the ability to do so? Are intellectuals the most fit to lead society? Evil is normally observed as the dualistic reverse of good. Descriptions of evil differ as does the study of its root motives, as well as causes (Freeman 1). Nevertheless, evil is usually associated with purposeful and conscious wrongdoing, violating the commandments of a God, as well as the rules of society, and discrimination intended to harm others. Evil is also linked to humiliation of individuals intended to diminish their emotional well-being and self-esteem. It can be termed as destructiveness, as well as motives of causing pain and suffering for selfish or malicious intentions. Leadership, conversely, has been illustrated as the procedure of social authority in which an individual can procure the aid, as well as support, of others in the deed of a common duty. Other in-depth meanings of leadership have also materialized. This paper will discuss whether people are obligated to fight evil if they have the ability to do so and whether intellectuals are most fit to lead the society than non-intellectuals. Question 1 There is a distinction between an individual who is uninformed of social etiquette and a person who has a permanent impulse to wound and hurt other people. There is also a distinction between someone who has a rough day, as well as someone who is rough every day. The fact is that evil, as well as an evil person, is characterized by deception, viciousness, cruelty among other traits (Freeman 1). However, at other times people just might be having one of those temporary lapses that everybody has at times. The known characteristics portrayed by evil characters are: destruction, depiction as well as manipulation. Destruction is where by people aim to cause damages. Evil people recurrently tear down relationships plus they cannot maintain friendships. Evil people continually wound other people with cruel actions, as well as speeches. Now, a way of obviously fighting this person would be simply to avoid him or her. However, the challenge is how to note an evil person before a person becomes interactive with him or her. Another trait of evil or an evil person would be deception (Freeman 1). It is a fact that evil individuals chronically tell lies to the extent that people never know when they are telling the truth. People are obliged to avoid such behaviors, and they should take it as their initiative never to believe a word of an evil person. It is viable even not to talk to evil people. That is a vital way of taking the initiative of fighting evil. Evil is also known to be a vital factor of manipulation. This is because evil people do not have a ‘god’ complex. Evil individuals desire to be the center of the universe. They also think that they are the center of the universe. Hence, they will proceed with what they want so as to acquire what they need. Now, a person with high self esteem, as well as morals, cannot easily be manipulated. The only means to fight such an individual is to show them that they cannot easily control a person’s life. That acts as a diminishing factor to evil people since they want to control everything (Freeman 1). This is a way of taking your own initiative to fight evil. Also, simply hoping that evil or an evil person will get better will not work. Hoping they will astonish people with 'goodness' is also a poor strategy. If a person is in a position to control evil, then they should undertake the task. It will mostly work if the person takes on the evil person in public. This will put the evil person in a tough spot. It is not advisable to send any message such as a text or email, not unless from a lawyer. Also, people can tackle evil if they have the ability to involve a higher person in the society (Freeman 1). If the evil person is breaking the organizations rules, the person should involve the boss in a way of fighting that evil. It is also advisable to make their actions known by everybody. Everybody trying to fight evil can do this. They could do this through warning other people about them but not in the context of gossip. Question 2 In today’s society, intellectuals seem to have the upper hand in everything. Nearly every head of state all across the world is learned. They either have a degree, masters or even a PhD in their line of study from a renowned university in the world (Mead 1). It is as if this is a requirement for all leaders in the society. They should be masters in education. The question, however, should be who is most fit to lead the society. People who are learned have intellectual power. As the saying goes “knowledge is power,” this also applies to intellectuals. Intellectuals have knowledge in everything, but it is not clear if all of them have a vision to lead. Not everybody intellectual is obligated to bring changes in the society, but those people chosen by God who are blessed with wisdom, knowledge, as well as have great vision ought to lead the society in bringing helpful changes. It is agreeable to state that everybody wants able leadership, but do not care about its composition. The fact is that people are in a divided civilization. The intellectual background of a person is still sadly as essential as a person's politics (Mead 1). The role of intellectuals acting in an official faculty should not be of creating policies single-handedly, but offering leaders an up to date outlook of the broader trends of their current society. An intellectual’s task should be to expose the larger issues of their time and the goals that can be derived from this wide perspective (Gattone 34). Instead of wanting directly to run the course of political proceedings, an intellectual should act as an advisor. An advisor’s task is to draw the concentration of leaders to the long-term results of the actions being deliberated. This aims to propose ways to carry on within the framework of an informed scrutiny of existing conditions. Whereas political intellectuals typically refrain from trying directly to shape policy decisions, they have a duty to avoid being excessively accepting of the principles and goals of management with which they are associated. Intellectuals are not obliged passively to agree to the choices of their superiors in spite of negligent ethical standards and strategic flaws. However, to critics, these in a positive manner, seeks to give practicable alternatives. The point to which an administration grants dissent is an issue that political intellectuals have to consider. Their array of their tolerance for inadequately formulated policies should also be firmly circumscribed. Intellectuals are supposed to be team players. They should acknowledge a measure of divergence from their ideals instead of forcing themselves to be leaders (Gattone 36). However, they can do so only to the level that this agreement does not restrict their long-term capability of influencing policy in a way consistent with their own individual goals and values. The duty of intellectuals acting as political advisors should thus be to uphold a critical outlook relative to all projected policy suggestions. They should seek also to hold these policies up to the standards of their work, in addition to those to which, they subscribe as individuals. In conclusion, leadership should be left to those people who have a positive vision for the society. People with a positive vision will try all they can so as to achieve their goals. Instead of restricting the leadership field to intellectuals, people should consider giving the task to visionary people so as to achieve the long desired changes in society. Works Cited Freeman, Tzvi. How Do You Fight Evil? White Russia: Chabad.Org, 2012. Web. Gattone, Charles. The Role of the Intellectual in Public Affairs: Changing Perspectives in the Modern Era. Oberlin, Ohio: Oberlin College, 2000. Print. Mead, Walter. The Crisis of the American Intellectual. N.p, 2010. Web. Read More