I like this perspective. It is not fair to brand someone as evil or an accomplice to evil just because of a lack of power to do anything. Like you said, action without power or thought may make the situation worse.

Jesus could do this because he had divine authority. Does the ordinary man have such authority?

I liked this illustration that you presented. We know that B does not have understanding of good/evil, but what if B thinks and believes strongly that he does? Conversely, how can we be sure that A and C have a good understanding of good/evil? Just because one believes something strongly, does it make it true?

I think beliefs of what is good/right colliding against each other gives rise to the greatest tragedies.

Thanks for your response. I'm not sure I follow. The destructive harm I was referring to was caused by following this quote as a creed and acting on it. What if by trying to remedy the evil I see actually makes things worse? I've been burned many times; whenever I try to shine light into the world, though it seems better at the moment, eventually I am haunted by the shadows that are cast as a result. It's almost as though all I had done was reallocate the evil somewhere else... :(

This is when I truly think it would have been better to have stayed silent. Most of the regrets I have in life are of things I said or did (with the best intentions at that time)....not of things I didn't do. In fact I can't even think of any regret of something I didn't do.

But can we truly use it as a creed to live by? Can we really trust our own moral compass? Many people think they are doing good at one point in their life, but later regret their actions after the sands of time shift the moral topography of society.

Personally I feel like there should be a neutral stance....not "you either do good or are an accomplice to evil." That type of mutual exclusivity pushes people into a corner. :(

Thank you for your thoughtful response. So if I do nothing in the face of good, it is still considered being an accomplice to good? And by doing the same thing in the face of evil, I am an accomplice to evil? How can the same action have such contrasting interpretations?

Since the idea of good and evil has been ever-changing (refer to my above response to tim wood), how can we judge someone's silent neutrality as being accomplices of evil or good?

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I noticed that you used the term "minor evil." This implies that there are various degrees/shades of evil. If that is the case, then is it possible to be absolutely certain that one person's view of what is good/evil is the same as another person's view? Furthermore, does the surrounding context add or take away meaning to the "evil?"

For example, what was considered evil to most a hundred years ago is no longer considered evil to most now. In the face of a constantly shifting moral compass, is it fair to accuse the silent of being accomplices to evil? During the Salem witch trials, people actively went out and accused people of being witches because the idea that witchcraft=evil was so dominant and they thought they had to do something about evil. Not too long ago homophobia was so prevalent because many people believed that homosexuality=evil. Now if a well-intentioned person had followed that quote and acted on it in some way, would that be good or evil? How about someone that had stayed silent and kept their beliefs to themselves?

Alas people change and society as a whole changes and thankfully this is not the case anymore.

I guess what I'm trying to articulate in my question this: Does this quote take away the neutral position? It has you believe that you are either doing good or doing evil. Is there truly not a neutral stance?