“It is necessary only for the good man to do nothing for evil to triumph.”

Where there is good, there is also evil. As such, there is always conflict between the two factions, but there have been many arguments as to which side has triumphed over the other. Good is typically associated with life, charity, continuity and happiness, while evil on the other hand is just the opposite of that. Some say that good will always triumph over evil, but is that always the case? Even now, many people are trying to find out what it means to be good and to be evil.

As said by Edmund Burke, “It is necessary only for the good man to do nothing for evil to triumph.” Evil will definitely win the battle if there is no one to stop it. Mankind is born with an evil nature, with a tendency towards greed, money and violence. But we are also kind and good in our nature. As such, good acts as a counterbalance against evil. But if either good or evil were to disappear, the balance would be disproportionate. Good and evil are exact opposites of each other; therefore if a good man does nothing to fight against evil, evil would run rampant. Take for example a robber. He steals a lump of cash, and the police do nothing to catch him. Seeing how there is nothing stopping him from stealing even more, he continues to rob people of their money, receiving no punishment whatsoever. Thus, evil would triumph if good did not do anything to stop it.

Furthermore, a good man is someone who upholds justice and repels evil. However, if a good man stands by and watches evil take place, he would no longer be considered “good”, and “good” would become invalid. A man is not good just because he has done something that is justifiably right, but is good by continuing to carry out those deeds. Therefore if a good man lets evil slip past him, evil will triumph over good.

On the other hand, there are some cases in which good resists against evil, but evil still triumphs. Evil is present everywhere in our lives, whether in school or in work. Despite good’s attempts at stopping evil, evil can still overpower good. There are many events that display such an event, like how the Japanese forces took Singapore by storm, despite Britain’s attempts at “resisting evil”. The overpowering evil does not even need to be shown to such an extent; even in work, bosses who abuse their power triumph over the “good” workers, with the workers unable to retaliate.

In conclusion, evil can triumph over good if good does not lift a finger to stop evil. Ultimately, evil and good act as a balance for each other, so as long as they balance off each other, they can coexist. However, evil can, and will triumph against good if nothing is done to stop it.

Is War a necessary Evil?

War sweeps up countries and tears down civilizations, bringing health and economical catastrophe, leaving in its wake a trail of bloodshed and destruction. However, despite all this, a war is started to prevent a worse outcome. Sometimes it is to protect that which is precious to us. Sometimes it is started because there is no other alternative. In the end, war is still a necessity that helps to keep the world in order.

Not all wars can be prevented. War is necessary to resolve conflicts that cannot be stopped any other way. Some people say that through peace talks and negotiations, we can stop war from occurring and ultimately stop war. However this is not true, if you take for example the situation in Iraq. Iraq’s making of nuclear weapons are a threat to society. If Iraq were open to negotiations, it would have been possible to end the matter through peace talks and the like. However, since that was not the case, it was inevitable for war to occur. War was a last resort for peace, and despite efforts to try and come to an agreement, peace talks did not work. It is in our nature to want to solve things in the quickest possible way, with violence. As a result, war is completely necessary in this case.

Furthermore, war is not always to destroy and to eliminate. Sometimes, war is started in order to prevent a worse outcome from occurring. The Libyan war is one such example of war being for a more important cause; a cause of freedom of the Middle East. Gaddafi only wanted power over his country and the people, and did not care of their welfare, only pursuing his own agenda. In this case, negotiations were no longer able to be carried out because of the government’s greed for control, and war was the only option to free the people of Libya from the oppression. Peace talks were considered in order to try and save more people instead of going straight for war. However, if action was not taken, many more people would have suffered under the oppression of the Libyan government. Although a war takes away many people’s lives, and causes many others to suffer, a war is a justified one, allowing people to enjoy a better future. It is in these cases that war is for a greater good.

On the other hand, war is filled with death, injuries and the loss of many loved ones. Not just that, the country’s economy would suffer tremendously when war occurs in that country. Is the future of the country worth the death of so many people? Despite ending a war even, the infrastructure of the country would be down, and many funds and resources that would have been used for development would have been wasted on war supplies. Wars are destructive, disruptive and most of all, costly. If this is the price that we have to pay for a war to ensue, what is the point of a war then?

In conclusion, war is necessary as a last resort despite its destructive consequences. War is necessary in the case when there is no other choice but to wage war on another country for a greater cause.

Should US have dropped the atomic bomb on Japan?

World War II was a global military conflict lasting from 1939 to 1945, which involved most of the world's nations, including all of the great powers: eventually forming two opposing military alliances, the Allies and the Axis. The Axis consisted mainly of the Germans and the Japanese, while the Allies consisted of the large superpowers like Britain, the US and the Soviet Union. In the war, over 60 million people were killed, far more than that of World War I. As for the end of the war, one of the most significant reasons as to why it ended, was the US dropping the two atomic bombs onto Japan, Little Boy and Fat Man. However, was it necessary to drop the atomic bomb and massacre thousands at that time in order to stop the war?

In my personal opinion, the United States decision of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was a necessary decision: they were not wrong in dropping those two catastrophic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Despite the tragic lives lost in the process, the entire war was stopped mainly because of the dropping of the bombs. Imagine for a moment that the bombs were not dropped, and the war continued on for another few months: a even greater number of lives would have been affected. Therefore, the dropping of the atomic bomb was a right decision.

Some people may say that the level of severity in which the US used to stop the war was a bit high, it was said that the US had tried different methods by firebombing the different cities of Japan, but the war had still no signs of ending. Some may say that the lives lost during the bombing were all innocent lives, however the laws of war does not state that civilians cannot be targeted.

In conclusion, the US's decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan was a justifiable decision as it resulted in the end of the war in an instant.