Should Intellectuals Be Obligated to Fight Evil - Personal Statement Example

Should Intellectuals Be Obligated To Fight Evil? First School Affiliation This is a paper on intellectuals and evil fighting. The question that will be answered by the end of this paper is, ‘should intellectuals should be obligated to fight evil? The paper will begin by explaining who can be referred as an intellectual in the society. It will explain more on how people get to be referred as intellect and their role as intellects. In this paper, I have given my stand on whether it’s the role of the intellects to fight evil. What is the understanding of evil by the intellects? Then if it’s their obligation to fight evil, is it more appropriate that they be the ones to govern the society? These are questions I will be answering in this paper. My argument will be based from other previous researches done by other writers before me with regard to studies on intellects. Should intellectuals be obligated to fight evil? Introduction Who can we refer to as intellectuals? Intellectuals are people who are believed to make use of their intelligence in an individual or professional capacity. Intellectuals are well known for having good reasoning and to be efficient critical thinkers. Intellectuals are classified into three types of people: an individual involved in erudite ideologies and theories; an individual whose career completely involves the development and distribution of ideas; an individual of significant social and creative skills whose knowledge allows him or her intellectual power in public discussion (Basov, 2010). From the above understanding of intellectuals, we can see that intellectuals are people that the society views as elites and their opinion is seen to matter. In a society these are people who are sought out to give their opinion based on their reasoning on various matters pertaining to the society. It is therefore not astonishing that this topic on whether the intellectuals in a society have an obligation to fight evil has been of interest in various discussions. Very many people have raised their views, some against while some agree that the intellectuals should be obligated to fighting evil (Basov, 2010). Do you agree with this sentiment that it is obligation of those who can fight evil to do so, even if it puts at risk their own loved ones? I agree to with the sentiments that it is the obligation of those who fight evil to do so, even if it might pose danger to those around them in their life. The first reason for this stand is based on the concept of altruism. This is the moral code in that says that no human being is existent for his own sake. It says that the justification to existence of a person is so that he can be of service to others and his highest moral duty should be self-sacrifice (Binswanger, 1986). This is a theory that guides us in whatever we do in this world. From this theory, there is clear support to the subject of discussion. It is a moral code that those who can fight evil should do so as this is the only justification for their existence. Putting those they love at risk is a form of self-sacrifice regarded by this theory as the highest form of moral duty. The intellectuals also realize the need to help. Intellectualism depicts that an individual will always do what is right or best based on their understanding on what is right. The intellectuals thus feel obliged to fight what they understand to be evil. An example of one such intellectual is depicted in the poem ‘The History Teacher’ by Billy Collins (2011). The character of the poem is an intellectual who is profound in protecting the innocence in his students from the evils of this world. He felt obliged in his teaching to do this by softening the harshness of nature as he taught history. One such example is that the teacher said that ‘The War of the Roses took place in a garden’ (Collins, 2005). This was one among the many things the teacher softened the harshness from the students. The teacher believed this was the right thing to do as an intellect not knowing he had done more harm than good by not telling the students of the consequences the past had. The students would go to the playing field and harass those who were weak. The teacher felt obliged to protect the children from evil but he ends up causing harm to be inflicted on some of his students. Zimbardo in his writing of ‘The Lucifer Effect’ wonders how it can be that an ordinary person can reach a point of inflicting harm to another person. This is what he called the Lucifer effect. Though there is this effect on good people he is quick to say that if called upon to be a hero, a person should be ready to act in accordance to the call (Zimbardo, 2006). This goes to supporting my answer that obligation to fight evil should be a trait in all intellectuals who can tell good from evil. Zimbardo cites examples of Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther king as intellectuals who fought evil. My view is further supported by Dyson in his book ‘The Public Obligations of Intellectuals’. He says that the intellectuals have a right and obligation to be as smart as they can but they are even more obliged to be good with the smartness they possess (Dyson, 2003). The intellectual should not just be learned but they should be responsible too (Rich, 2011). From all the above literature review its only right to say that there is a lot of support that all intellectuals should feel an obligation to fight evil despite the repercussions that might come with it. Are "intellectuals then more fit to govern society because they understand the argument for doing evil and good? I would say the intellectuals are fit to govern a society because they understand the argument for doing evil and good. The definition of intellectual/s is an individual or people who use their intelligence to do what is good through critical thinking and reasoning. This definition clearly shows that intellectuals are very intelligent. This intelligence would play a good role in governing. When a person is intellect, he is obligated to do what is right and to be willing to have self-sacrifice. This act of obligation makes a good leader out of intellects. One characteristic in all good leaders is that they are selfless in whatever they do; always thinking of others before anything else. This is a quality that you will also get with the intellectuals. Being selfless means you are willing to do good to others at all times (Zimbardo, 2006). There are various intellectuals who have ruled and turned out to be recognized as heroes. Examples of some of these intellectuals are Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King (Zimbardo, 2006). These are people who were had nothing to be remembered with before becoming heroes. They turned out to be life-long heroes. These are very good examples that intellectual leaders have impacted this word and have been labelled as having been great leaders. Intelligent leaders are never too busy to come up with excellent choices, to invest on others, to pay attention, or to learn. These characters require an individual to be selfless so as to make a good leader. Intellects are well aware that they have an obligation to fighting evil in a selfless way. Therefore, the intellects ability to be selfless will create individuals fit to be leaders. What kind of argument might be made against what you are proposing? There has been argument that if you place an individual in a place of power, he is likely to turn to evil. This is what is referred to as the Lucifer effect by Zimbardo. There was a study conducted to try and understand if this were true and why? They came up with an environment to depict a prison. The participants were divided into wardens and prisoners. After six weeks the project/experiment came to a closure because the wardens had turned violent (Zimbardo, 2006). From this experiment, it was said that there is a high likelihood that even the intellect will turn out to be evil doers rather than fight over evil when given the power to govern. This is what is referred to as ‘the banality of evil’ which is the potential that every man or woman will engage in an evil deed despite how morally the individual was brought up or how he currently relates with others (Zimbardo, 2006). Why would the counterargument be invalid, unjust, wrong, ineffective, or insufficient? This has been countered by what Zimbardo talks of as ‘the banality of heroism’. This gives examples of leaders who have risen to power and still they have managed to stay morally upright. There is Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King as his examples of heroes who were called upon to fight evil and they did an exemplary job never turning to doing evil deeds (Zimbardo, 2006). With these great examples I would find it invalid, unjust, wrong, ineffective, or insufficient to say that intellects will in the long run change their course of fighting evil into inflicting evil on others. References Basov, N. (2010). The Intellectual: A Phenomenon in Multidimensional Perspectives. Inter- Disciplinary Press. Binswanger, H. (1986). Altruism. Retrieved from http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html. Collins, B. (2005). The History Teacher. Retrieved from http://www.billy- collins.com/2005/06/the_history_tea.html. Collins, B. (2011). "The History Teacher". StudyMode.com. Retrieved from http://www.studymode.com/essays/The-History-Teacher-By-Billy-Collins-644737.html. Dyson, M. E. (2002). The Public Obligations of Intellectuals. Why I am an intellectual. Basic Civitas Books ISBN 0-465-01763-0. Print. Rich, A. (2011). Claiming an Education. Womens Studies: Our Perspective. Retrieved from http://womensstudiesourperspective.blogspot.com/2011/01/summary-of-claiming-education-and.html. Zimbardo, P. G. (2006). The Lucifer Effect. Understanding how good people turn evil. Retrieved from http://www.lucifereffect.com/about_synopsis.htm. Read More