The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good man to
do nothing. -Edmund Burke.
It is an established fact that good intentions should always be
followed by good actions, needless to say that such good action might not
have positive consequences but to restrict the good to oneself without
giving opportunity to the other people to derive benefit from it or if such
good does not counter evil in the society, then such good tantamount to an
evil in itself and it is of no use or rather it brings harm to the bearer of
such good intentions.
SOURCE
It was this idea which Samuel Johnson(1709-1784) wanted to
forward in the late eighteenth century. This famous intellectual of that era
when said that the way to hell is paved with good intentions did not mean
that a bearer of good intentions would live his after-life in hell and the
God would punish him for having good intention, and neither he wanted to
Emphasize that the road to Heaven is paved with bad ones. What he
Wanted to say, was, that such motives if not put into practice would give
person a hard life to live, creating for himself a paradoxical alliance,
of actions and motives, different in their real sense (that is) from inside of
his heart he is an upright person but outwardly he travels in the stream of
evil. He was born in a humble family went to Oxford where he could t
Samuel Johnson himself was an honest person and an intellectud,
complete his education due to financial constraints,
Such were the conditions in which he suffered all his life. Finanon
created problem after problem in his life. Six month before his deads, be
arrived at a conclusion that his personal faith was inadequate for his
salvation, why? because he kept his good ideas to himself or he was
unable to implement them for the society as a whole.
ATTRIBUTES OF 18TH CENTURY.
For the further clarifications of this phrase one is bound to dig up
history, so that a better view is established under which he was influenced
to speak such phrase.
Eighteenth century was the century of Benevolent Despotism and
political revivalism among the people.
Many great Monarch like Maria Thresa, Joseph II of Hapsburgh
Frederick the Great of Prussia Louis XIV of France and king Georges I, II
and III of Hanoverian line were dominant on the scene of Europe. Though
these kings ruled with iron hand but were subsequently developing a sense
of rationalism to grant freedom to the people. On the whole royal
absolution was in practice.
Secondly personal glorification of a king was another dominant
characteristic of that century, Nations began to sought colonies overseas
and within the continent.
And thirdly intellectuals like Montesquo Roseau, Volataire of
France and Edmund Burke of Great Britain were also present, writings of
french philosophers led to the two major revolutions in this world i.e.
American revolution and French revolution.
These circumstances seem to be the contributory factors in the
creation of this phrase. The kings of that time had noble intentions like
glorification of their nations but in doing so they killed hundreds of people
in the war, slaves trade was another trait of such glorification.
Secondly, though these kings and queens wanted to give more
freedom to the general public but they were unable to put their ideas into
practice, Rich being over privileged class were always supported by the Kings and emperors as their interest were directly attached with the
beings, hence they were unable to practise their ideals.
dead with him.
Thirdly, there are possibilities that Johnson had been unable to
achieve what he really wanted to and he feared that his ideas might go
DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS.
According to the English Idiomatic Dictionary, this phrase has two
(1) blame or punishment is incurred by having good
satire which are either not put into practice or
(2) which have evil or harmful results.
Explanations (Part 1).
According to this segment of the interpretations, blame or
punishment is incurred by a person who does not transform his idea into
practical utility either for his personal sake or for others.
Such person is bound to receive punishment or blame, because an
alternate of good which God has given him remains useless and of no
utility, whereas God commands that “His words should reach the ears of
each and every human being.”
Whatever the amount of good, God instills in a human soul, should
be transferred or put into practice. One should practically act out in order
o satisfy those good motives and intentions.
It is also important to note that when such intentions are put into
practice, it is only then a man is able to achieve peace, not only for
himself but for the society as a whole. As said by Emerson.
“Nothing can bring you more peace but the triumph of principles”.
Thus if intentions are not put into practice they would not result in
peace but in the triumph of evil (as said by Edmund Burke)
An important attribute of this phrase is, that, after passing through
tore than hundred years it still holds water. Any person with not an
average sense of observation and insight could feel that it is applicable for
al times. One can find many such examples scattered through out our
ociety. One such example is a conflict between personal interest and collective interest. There is hardly any person who would not speak for
collective interests. Any person would win your heart by the rhetoric of
his support toward collective interests and it is vital to note that he speaks
with all the good intentions. But the conflicts appear when it comes to the
application of such motives and intentions in the larger interest of the
community what results out is the triumph of personal interests over the
collective ones.
Take for example a politician who avows to eliminate poverty and
further avows to work for the welfare of the people. It is not to say that
the author undermines their credibility, no they certainly can do it and the
worst part is they want to do it, but again these good intentions are shelved
at some remote corner of his soul when his personal interest is at stake.
He would first fulfil his own needs but the irony is that such needs are
never fulfilled in their entirety.
Explanation (Part 2)
A human kind cannot bear very much reality.
-T.S. Eliot
Eliot the famous English poet was right when be said so. Reality is
the bitter of all pill a human being needs to swallow and in most cases he
does not.
To depict stark reality has never been a viable concept. It was the
reality which emerged when Louis XIV came to realize that the country
has gone bankrupt. The french nation could not bore that reality and the
result was French revolution. Which took the lives of thousands of people,
a reign of terror prevailed with a supremacy of Robspierre and further
bloodshed gave rise to Napoleon Bonaparte in 1793.
It is not to suggest that reality should not be told or exposed but
what it means, is that while exposing reality one should keep in mind the
consequences, of sucl. acts. There are chances that a person exposing the
truth with good intentions but such truth might lead to disaster, take for
example a rape victim in the present circumstances.
If a journalist, in a larger interest of the society, print’s her name
and picture captioned as victim of a rape. One can well imagine the kind
of life she is going to live afterwards. This exposure of reality would
create a lot of anomalies in her life and instead of gaining sympathies she
might further be tagged as a whore or prostitute. Such stark realities in
pursuance of one’s good intentions are not desirable. Another such example can be quoted with respect to media. If too
much crime is exposed in the society, there are possibilities that it would
The people might feel insecure which would subsequently result in chaos.
It is also to pinpoint that one major cause of any revolution is the feeling
of insecurity among the people, while insecurity is like a pregnant woman
whose stomach gets bigger and bigger day by day while the net result is an
on the psyche of the people living in that society.
issue.
Therefore good intentions not put into practice or such good
intentions having undesirable consequence are both blame worthy.
Conclusion:-
One cannot deny the theory propounded by Samuel Johnson, it was
need of that day and perhaps his personal need as well and nevertheless it
still holds water. Yet it is vital to observe that time has changed. Time and
space in which this theory wave propounded had other attributes which are
not available in this era. People have gained their freedom and best of all
is that it is people who are ruling this planet. Royal absolutism has
transformed into a constitutional monarchy. A Monarch is now the
custodian of good in the society. Whereas whatever people want from
heir govt. or from their representatives, they can easily derive.
