CRITICAL APPRECIATION

THE HARM THAT GOOD MEN DO

Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, British philosopher, mathematician, and social reformer.
Nobel Prize for Literature (1950). Russell is an iconoclastic modern philosopher who wrote this
witty essay against conventional beliefs, arguing in it that good and evil can be defined only
through the exercise of reason. The essay explores the notion that those who are considered
"good men" can sometimes cause more harm than those who are deemed "bad men."
Bertrand Russell, the famous British philosopher, and mathematician, explored the harm that
good men do in several of his works, including his essay "The Essence of Pacifism." Russell
believed that the harm that good men do often stems from a lack of critical thinking and a
blind adherence to authority.
In “The Harm That Good Men Do”, Russell, the inimitable British Voltaire evaluated the
difficulty and dilemma of answering children, or their more adult versions, just what is a “good
man?” Russell deflates, debunks, and denigrates the conventionally defined “good man,” as
generally a moralistic fop, a mere defender of the superficial status quo. Russell attacks these
“good men” who represent the unjust power of the dominant classes.
Russell begins by mentioning a philosopher named Jeremy Bentham who lived a century
before him who defined good men as a man who does good. That "people ought to make soup
of their dead grandmothers." Russell disapproves Bentham’s definition of a good man and
called it contrary to true morality as moral law introduced by Kant could make it necessary for a
man to perform an unkind action. Russell regards Kant a superior moralist than Bentham as he
defined kind action as the one inspired by the moral law Unfortunately, Bentham became
known as a wicked man as he fulfilled his definition of a good man. . Russell then describes the
social reforms of the Victorian Era and mentions that much of the progress was influenced by
the progressive ideas of Bentham who promoted utilitarianism.

Russell then describes the ideal "good man" who behaves amiably, attends church, and has
"irreproachable" morals. He then contrasts society's idea of a "bad man" by describing a
person who is a nonconformist, has subversive opinions, seeks enjoyment without
consequences, and is honest with himself and others. Russell is seen to defend the bad men in
disguise by stating the general view about them, when he says that they prefer recreation over
going to church on Sundays and they are honest because they try not to conceal their moral
lapses like good men. He also states that these so-called bad men are also denied authoritative
position like schoolmaster or judge.
Russell claims that these standards of moral judgement are not new they have had existed all
the time. Russell then mentions how Wordsworth and Coleridge were considered "bad men"
when they did not abide by Christian standards despite produced some of their most
extraordinary works. Russell here suggests that ‘Goodness and writing of genuine poetry don’t
go hand in hand.’ He proceeds to list famous poets, philosophers, and scientists who were
considered "bad men" simply because their views did not align with the ideals of their
government. All renaissance men were considered bad because they had revolutionary ideas
not confirming to the traditional ideas of morality. In the modern era, Russell believes that a
"good man" is simply a person whose opinions and activities please those in authority.

Russell then discusses what society considers "good men" like George III who oppressed
Catholics and Kaiser Wilhelm who caused immense harm to humanity. Russell mockingly
states that the purpose of a "good man" is to provide a smokescreen to the public so that
villainous individuals can secretly carry out their actions. "Good men" also ruin the political
careers of those who disagree with the majority in power. When they come across a weakness
of that one person, they have the following options: they can expose the weakness and ends his
career, they compel him to retire into private life or they can blackmail him for the money. These
three methods come into existence only through good man because they are that disguised
culprits.
Russell points out that good men can cause harm in several ways. For instance, they may
become so fixated on their own beliefs and values that they become intolerant of others who
hold different beliefs or values. This can lead to the suppression of dissenting opinions, which
can be detrimental to the growth and development of society.
Another way that good men can cause harm is by blindly following the dictates of authority.
Russell argues that good men often place too much trust in authority figures and are willing to
accept their decisions without question. This can lead to the perpetuation of unjust systems
and practices.
Russell argued that many individuals who cause harm, even with good intentions, do so
because they are not critically evaluating the actions they are taking or the policies they are
supporting. Instead, they are relying on the opinions of those in positions of authority, such as
the government or religious leaders, without questioning whether these opinions are actually in
line with their own values and principles.
Russell also believed that this type of harm is perpetuated by the fear of being seen as disloyal
or unpatriotic, which can prevent individuals from speaking out against policies and actions
that they believe are wrong. This fear of being ostracized or criticized for not conforming to the
dominant cultural norms can lead good individuals to blindly follow authority, even when this
means perpetuating harm.He believed that nationalism can lead individuals to blindly support
actions that they would otherwise find morally reprehensible, such as war or aggression against
other countries.
Russell also argues that "good men" suppress knowledge, particularly concerning the
prevention of venereal diseases, to maintain Biblical precepts. Russell comments on the wars
which have been started over the deaths of "good men," and argues that standards of
"goodness" do not make the world a happier place. Russell feels that the dominant class
promotes traditional ideas and customs essentially based on superstitious, irrational beliefs that
do not better society. Russell resents the fact that a man is labeled "good" if he avoids sin but
does nothing to better society, as well as the fact that governments routinely punish those who
act selflessly.
Russell challenges the faulty merits and standards of society which declare a man who is not
good in his conduct but is good for the society and the well-being of the society is considered a
bad man on the basis of his conduct, while his better approach to the society is neglected.
Russell expands on the theme by examining the popular belief that the greatest threat to society
comes from "bad men" who are driven by greed, malice, or other nefarious motives.
However, he argues that while bad men certainly cause harm, the harm they cause is often
limited by their lack of power and influence. In contrast, good men who are motivated by a
sense of duty, righteousness, or justice can cause much greater harm because of their power
and influence.

Russell declares traditional morality as oppressive and negative as it has imposed prohibitions
and taboos and urges us to adopt rational attitude towards ethical questions. Russell advocates
for a morality based on "love of life, upon pleasure in growth and positive achievement, not
upon repression and prohibition." He urges society to examine their definition of what a
"good man" is and argues that those who exploit others for personal gain, despite their
authority or popular opinion, be viewed and labeled as immoral individuals.
However, on closing his critical litany against the conventional “good man,” Russell offers the
hope of science and reason; they eventually will enable men to realize that institutions based on
hatred and injustice will not produce happy societies, and that “good man” need a morality
based on “love of life … pleasure in growth, and not upon repression or exploitation”.
Though difficult and painful to follow, Russell’s criticism and positive suggestions are a
positive beacon of lucidity and light for all who would like to be called “good man,” or
“woman”.

Russell`s opinion is to revise these standards of judgment. He advocates the concept of

rationality in judging a good man or bad man. Moreover, he emphasizes that a person should be
called good or bad by gauging his contribution towards well-being of society and people
rather than evaluating goodness in them by their virtuous actions and good public image. He says
a man is good when he is happy with the others and for the others. But a man who has
amassed a good fortune by exploitation shall be called an immoral man. He should not be
called a good man on the basis of going to church or giving charity.

Overall, Russell's essay is a thought-provoking and compelling exploration of the harm that
well-intentioned individuals can cause. His argument is persuasive, and his use of concrete
examples effectively illustrates his points. Russell has employed ironic remarks to attack good
men e.g. A good man ……………. using his goodness to screen villains, public funds in hands
of deserving rich,…..dangerous knowledge which our good men so kindly provide. However,
some critics have suggested that his emphasis on the importance of knowledge and critical
thinking may overlook the role that power dynamics and systemic issues.