Are people obligated to fight evil if they have the ability to do so Essay

Are people obligated to fight evil if they have the ability to do so And are intellectuals the most fit to lead society - Essay Example It can be termed as destructiveness, as well as motives of causing pain and suffering for selfish or malicious intentions. Leadership, conversely, has been illustrated as the procedure of social authority in which an individual can procure the aid, as well as support, of others in the deed of a common duty. Other in-depth meanings of leadership have also materialized. This paper will discuss whether people are obligated to fight evil if they have the ability to do so and whether intellectuals are most fit to lead the society than non-intellectuals. Question 1 There is a distinction between an individual who is uninformed of social etiquette and a person who has a permanent impulse to wound and hurt other people. There is also a distinction between someone who has a rough day, as well as someone who is rough every day. The fact is that evil, as well as an evil person, is characterized by deception, viciousness, cruelty among other traits (Freeman 1). However, at other times people jus t might be having one of those temporary lapses that everybody has at times. The known characteristics portrayed by evil characters are: destruction, depiction as well as manipulation. Destruction is where by people aim to cause damages. Evil people recurrently tear down relationships plus they cannot maintain friendships. Evil people continually wound other people with cruel actions, as well as speeches. Now, a way of obviously fighting this person would be simply to avoid him or her. However, the challenge is how to note an evil person before a person becomes interactive with him or her. Another trait of evil or an evil person would be deception (Freeman 1). It is a fact that evil individuals chronically tell lies to the extent that people never know when they are telling the truth. People are obliged to avoid such behaviors, and they should take it as their initiative never to believe a word of an evil person. It is viable even not to talk to evil people. That is a vital way of t aking the initiative of fighting evil. Evil is also known to be a vital factor of manipulation. This is because evil people do not have a ‘god’ complex. Evil individuals desire to be the center of the universe. They also think that they are the center of the universe. Hence, they will proceed with what they want so as to acquire what they need. Now, a person with high self esteem, as well as morals, cannot easily be manipulated. The only means to fight such an individual is to show them that they cannot easily control a person’s life. That acts as a diminishing factor to evil people since they want to control everything (Freeman 1). This is a way of taking your own initiative to fight evil. Also, simply hoping that evil or an evil person will get better will not work. Hoping they will astonish people with 'goodness' is also a poor strategy. If a person is in a position to control evil, then they should undertake the task. It will mostly work if the person takes o n the evil person in public. This will put the evil person in a tough spot. It is not advisable to send any message such as a text or email, not unless from a lawyer. Also, people can tackle evil if they have the ability to involve a higher person in the society (Freeman 1). If the evil person is breaking the organizations rules, the person should involve the boss in a way of fighting that evil. It is also advisable to make their actions known by everybody. Everybody trying

Selective Lit Review Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Selective Lit Review - Assignment Example Continually, organizations are recognizing that their employees are a base for competitive advantage. As a result, HR departments are changing from being administrative, to become strategic partners – answerable to the achievement of business goals. This approach requires the development of new evaluation and defining models for the success of their HR. Through such models, they will be able to demonstrate the value of their strategic contribution. This review will discuss different errors in the current models of evaluation (Cousins, Donohue and Bloom, 1996). Cousins, Donohue and Bloom (1996) insist that despite developments in participatory and collaborative evaluation, little has been explored, over the perception of the evaluators, with regards to evaluation practices and their practicality. This was be explored using a survey of American and Canadian evaluators – in the area of their perceptions. From the 564 evaluators surveyed, a subsample of 348, apart from expressing their opinions over collaborative evaluation, they described collaborative evaluation projects they had participated in. From the survey of the 564 evaluators, over their views of evaluation, it was evident that they support a utilization-focused, service orientation to the function, and that the evaluator holds the responsibility of maximizing proposed use among the users. The practices of evaluators, show that most of them engage collaboratively – which is not intended to support either side of the professional discussion, but add to the knowledge-bas e on evaluation. Holton (1996) the lack of further study to advance the theory of evaluation is a primary deficiency for HRD (human resource development). In this regard, the four-level model of training evaluation is a classification of results, and erratic as a model of evaluation.