Extract
[...] To finally achieve the Good, we must then act in accordance with moral and ideal principles rather than waiting for the good, for justice to be rendered. The Good must therefore be obtained with force and combat and does not necessarily have to be done because we see clearly in this case that doing the good directly is the equivalent of doing nothing and therefore allowing evil to spread. III) The Good and the Evil: two principles between universality and relativity The notion of Relative Good Thus, we can deduce that the notion of 'good' can be relative depending on the eras and especially on the given societies. [...]
[...] Combattre le mal ne peut se faire que par le bien In fact, to combat the consequences of Evil that are Vengeance, Injustice, or Injustice, being ready at any moment to do Good seems necessary and fundamental. Here, to fight would be a natural synonym of the fact of 'doing' and to fight evil would be to act well according to moral principles of justice, equality, and kindness. This refers to a parallel and frontal combat of evil against Good. Historically and theologically, a text such as the Bible puts forward this vision and it is fundamental since it has inspired and still inspires entire civilizations. [...]
[...] Therefore, to combat the consequences of evil, it appears evident that doing good in a disinterested manner by prioritizing values of forgiveness and humility is the best way. However, in certain situations, it seems naive to think that only doing good will resolve unjust situations, sometimes abandoned by justice itself. The concept of good is therefore variable and to combat the consequences of evil, one must not always be ready immediately to do good, but to reflect and use the strategy and the path that has the most chance of working. [...]
[...] In fact, repaying evil ourselves would therefore mean avenging and producing exactly what we have suffered. To fight something, logic requires that two values be opposed. Fighting evil with evil would therefore have no sense and would be a pure product of incoherence. Doing good, fighting evil through idealistic principles Doing Good, therefore, would be to fight evil through principles of idealism that are decentered from oneself, such as forgiveness and humility. Fighting evil would then imply refusing any trickery in order to ultimately set an example for those who do evil themselves. [...]
[...] Evil must therefore be contained and forgiven, in order to make Good triumph. II) No, sometimes to fight the consequences of evil, one must be willing to act evil, because the end justifies the means It is sometimes necessary to trick in order to fight evil However, evil, due to its roots of hatred and manipulation, cannot be fought solely with kindness. In fact, while kindness may work in the short term and in minor situations, persistent evil cannot be tolerated with idealistic principles. [...]
