Originally published by David L. Katz, MD, MPH, FACPM, FACP, FACLM on LinkedIn: For Evil to Prevail

I can’t tell if Edmund Burke and I would agree or disagree about most things; the politics and issues of his day were so different from our own, I’m not sure what kind of political animal he would be branded today. In his day, he was labeled a staunch conservative. I imbibed what may be his signature contention early, and fully, even so, and have nurtured my commitment to it ever since: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

As with many vintage exhortations, this one is intrinsically sexist. Women are as relevant as men on either side of this bargain. Let us, then, take the liberty of an update: for evil to prevail in the world, it is enough for good people to do nothing.

That, I believe. In fact, it may be almost trivial upon reflection. If action is taken on behalf of any position, good, bad, or otherwise, it is apt to prevail in the absence of opposition. I suppose we might look on the bright side: for good to prevail, it would be enough for evil people to do nothing.

Of course, if they were doing nothing, it’s hard to see what would make them “evil” in the first place. We are therefore stuck with the half-empty glass Burke handed us. Evil is, by its very nature, active; good must be as well, or it loses the argument.

Personally, I think most of our discord need not be encumbered by the drama of “good” and “evil,” a by-product of religious dualism. There can be conflict in the absence of evil. There can be valid arguments on both sides of a philosophical divide. That our culture seems to have burned any bridges across any such divides redounds to our collective discredit, and dysfunction.

Whatever the intrinsic drama, though, and however often it need not apply- there is, of course, evil in the world. There is avarice. There is corruption. There is exploitation. Anyone not holding such things to be self-evident, is evidently not paying attention.

In my world- lifestyle medicine, public health nutrition- there are legitimate differences of opinion among experts. These are generally, massively exaggerated, often in the service of provocation and profit by diverse elements of the cultural status quo. There is vastly more consensus than conflict; it just fails to propagate headlines. But still, legitimate differences, even if only about details, abound.

Such legitimate differences are not reflected in the subordination of content to dubious intent. They are not reflected in the subjugation of public health to profiteering. Legitimate dissent among actual experts is quite different from the pretense that every opinion, now with access to a cyberspatial megaphone, is tantamount to expertise. There is a stark difference between the confluent interests of an expert and the wares that carry such expertise into the world, and conflicts born of opinion, conjoined to expertise or not, and contrived solely or principally to peddle wares. Legitimate debate is quite distinct from indictment by innuendo.