Obligation of Those Who Can Fight Evil - Essay Example

Research Paper The prime intent of this essay is to make relevant arguments and counterarguments regarding certain sentiments prevailing in the modern day context. The sentiments such as the role of obligations in fighting against evil even facing varied risks and the consideration of intellectuals to be deemed as fit to govern a specific society have been taken into concern in this particular essay. Various significant aspects that encompass the impact as well as the potentiality of obligations in combating against evil and the responsibilities of the intellectuals have been placed with due importance for judging the above stated sentiments in an elaborated manner. It is strongly believed that by taking into consideration various arguments along with counterarguments based on the aforesaid sentiments, the role of obligations in the context of fighting against evil and the potentiality of the intellectuals towards governing a specific society can be ascertained. Introduction Philip Zimbardo, the lecturer in the audio file i.e. “Journey from the Psychology of Evil to the Psychology of Heroism” provided knowledge about psychological effect on the mind and behaviour of people. The lecturer signified that there are different factors that are accountable for transforming human behaviour and character. Moreover, the transformation in the character is observed due to social influence, situational act, personal attributes or morality, compassion or sense of justice. The factors are identified to adversely affect the psychological stability of human mind based on which good people are engaged in performing evil actions affecting a society as a whole. The lecturer also added that evil behaviour is exercising power to damage, harm or obliterate psychological or physical well-being of others (Korstanje, 2013; Zimbardo, 2007). Correspondingly, the essay intends to analyse sentiment to fight evil. The discussion will identify the suitability of intellectuals about their fitness in governing a society. Additionally, argument and counterargument provided with the aim of determining the appropriateness of the arguments relating to good or evil actions performed. Obligation of Those Who Can Fight Evil In general, most of the people recognizes that evil is a quality, which is inherent or developed by some of the people and not by all human beings. Evil behaviour is developed by an external force and bad seeds, which enforce an individual to perform evil actions. In contrast, spiritual power grounds evil either directly in the appearance of possession or indirectly as a spiritual oppression. People having obligation can choose to do things based on their behaviour, which others perceive as evil or wrong actions. Some individuals are having very powerful natural feeling that they can benefit others. Understanding the fact that an obvious inherent situation will self-harm through certain behaviour or may also put at risk their dear ones. Moreover, people intentionally go out of their way in order to assist the well-being of others for caring about their own safety and love ones well-being. For instance, people with the obligation to fight evil are ready to pay price for evil doers arrested, injured and fired from a job more-over facing death. In this context, the sentiment to have an obligation to fight evil would facilitate in developing a society as a whole (YouTube, 2014; Sowell, 2011). Additionally, more than just being an altruist, who is concerned less about him for the wellbeing of other individuals is eventually a bold action. The people who fight against the evil behaviour are recognised as ‘Extreme Altruist’ or X-Altruist rather than ‘Hero’. Extreme Altruist signifies behaviour of serving a society are regarded and rated high on altruism as such acts are without ever appealing towards heroic act. Consequently, X-Altruist is extreme type of heroism characteristics, where individuals take as much risks as they can by endangering the welfare of their own love ones. In this context, fighting against an evil is not an obligation to fight against it but for the characteristics and the traits of some people. The people fighting against evil behaviour are having low impulse control in them, as novelty needs are very high. Moreover, people fighting against evil behaviour have feel guilt of harm, very high exhibited sympathy over the others, emotionally detach with situations, love to acts in serving others interests or perform common good and extremely emotional sensitivity. Thus, devoting obligation to fight against evil are regarded as heroes or they were just being an ordinary men along with women who always step out to fight and plays a role of specific personality act (Sowell, 2011). Intellectuals More Fit To Govern Society Intellectuals are the ones who generate ideas based on right or wrong. The ideas generated are identified to affect a nation with respect to societal faith. In today’s scenario, countries are stirring toward socialism. Moreover, it can be identified that most important characteristic of intellectual is that they always try to consider new ideas not with regard to their own specific merits rather they keep in view the ideas in relation to the general conceptions as about the modern day scenario. However, in reality, intellectuals are not fit to govern society. Intellectuals do not teach or provide knowledge to people regarding the good and the bad behaviour based on societal matter. In order to understand the argument, intellectuals can understand the general argument for good and evil, but not every intellectual may understand it in a similar perspective or belief (Hayek, n.d.). Besides, another point in the justification will be for intellectuals to understand the argument and distinguish good behaviour from evil one, but it might be questioned about why they will conduct well-being activities for others. It is very important that people should have intelligence quality in order to have a better understanding about good or bad. The intellectuals are not only required to make decisions but also should make decisions for the overall development of a society. Moreover, they also need to induce and encourage people to follow the right direction. If intellectuals govern society for having better understanding of good and evil, then there should be no question regarding evil activity in a society. In real practice, this prospect is not applicable in all the countries. Thus, it can be concluded that intellectuals’ qualities can be recognised to be a positive trait for governing a society, but it will not be the only thing considered in deciding about what is good and evil. In most of the countries, people are not provided with governing power just because of being intellectual, but it is most significant that they should be good leader who can fulfil the desire and wellbeing of a society as a whole. Therefore, it can be comprehended that quality of higher general intelligence itself would not make people more appealing towards good and evil, as there are other aspects too for making better decision regarding overall safety and comfort of a society (Hayek, n.d.). Argument Based on the above analysis, it can be agreed with the statements like the obligation of those who can fight evil to do so, even if it puts at risk their own loved ones and intellectuals are fit to govern a society, as they understand the disagreements for performing evil and good. Justifiably, it is strongly believed that the beliefs regarding right as well as wrong and moral along with immoral does not lay on opposite ends in the spectrum of good and evil. Thus, obligations are deemed to arise in this particular situation, resulting in acquiring power for fighting against evil and experiencing varied risk factors. The argument, which could be made against this, is considering the fact that there exists a fine line between evil and good. Obligations play an imperative role in understanding this line in the form of putting risks on own loved ones towards fighting in opposition to evil. On the other hand, it is also been argued that intellectuals are seemed to be more fit in the context of governing society, as they are well aware about varied crucial issues that may arise while conducting good as well as evil practices. The argument, which might be made against this, is supporting the fact that the intellectuals tend to make effective decisions and make peculiar opinions that mainly differ from the existing viewpoints of the masses. Moreover, the varied responsibilities of the intellectuals eventually make them more fit towards governing society as compared to others. It will be vital to mention in this similar concern that the distinct roles along with responsibilities of the intellectuals are often identified to be manipulating composite conceptions, combating against the performance of unwise actions and making wider judgments about distinguishing the line between evil and good (Sowell, 2011, Hayek, n.d.). Counterargument Though it is strongly believed that obligations can fight against evil, even these puts at risk their own loved ones and the intellectuals are deemed to be more fit towards governing society, arguments have also been made in opposition to these statements or viewpoints. Justifiably, in relation to the above statements, counterarguments have been made stating that there lay certain crucial factors, which eventually hinder obligations to combat against evil after experiencing varied sorts of risks that are imposed over their loved ones. In this similar context, the crucial factors are often identified to change in term of cultures and persistence of dissimilar personalities among others. It is worth mentioning that these particular critical factors tend to become more impulsive, which eventually results into infringing rules, violating rights and challenging authorities among others, hindering obligations to fight in opposition to evil experiencing varied risks that are imposed over their respective loved ones. With regard to the viewpoint concerning the regard of intellectuals to be more fit in governing a society, counterarguments have also been made deciphering that governing a specific society efficiently often relies on the motive of the individuals rather than the intellectual capabilities or functionalities. In this respect, it has been also claimed that the intellectuals are confined much towards involving in varied unsocial activities like corruption, which hinders them to govern a society appropriately. Hence, in this regard, it can be affirmed that the intellectuals are not duly considered as fit to govern a society as a leader by a certain degree (Sowell, 2011, Hayek, n.d.). It is expected that these counterarguments may become invalid, unjust, wrong, ineffective or insufficient only at the time when necessary and relevant evidences associated with the aforesaid sentiments are placed adequately. Conclusion From the above analysis and discussion, it can be ascertained that the sentiments concerning the power of obligations towards combating against evil experiencing risks and the intellectuals are regarded to be more fit in governing a society can be agreed as well as disagreed by a certain level. The factors including the changing culture along with personality, distinct intellectual responsibilities of the intellectuals and the differences persisting amid the masses regarding the above stated sentiments eventually result in favouring and opposing to such sentiments. Thus, it can be concluded that obligations, at certain times or situations can fight against evil and not every condition represents the intellectuals to be more fit in governing a particular society. References Hayek, F. A. (n.d.). The intellectuals and socialism. Retrieved from https://mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf Korstanje, M. E. (2013). Review of "The Lucifer effect. Understanding how good people turn evil." Essays in Philosophy, 14(2), 353-357. Sowell, T. (2011). Introduction. Intellectuals and Society, 2-74. YouTube. (2014). Journey from the psychology of evil to the psychology of heroism. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMoZ3ThW6x0&hd=1# Zimbardo, P. G. (2008). The Lucifer effect: understanding how good people turn evil. US: Random House. Read More