Skip to main content

single word requests - What are "good men that do nothing" called?


"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke


Is there an idiom, phrase or preferably a single word that we can call people that could have helped but didn't? Bystanders don't necessarily have help to give. Cowards aren't particularly helpful either.



Addendum:


For example, once EMS has arrived on scene, bystanders are encouraged not to try to help, unless they're a nurse and therefore have the necessary skills to, and sometimes even then so. If in The Service, I would not want a coward (a liability) next me holding the line. Not to take anything away from these great answers, or to insist on a non-militaristic point of view, I would like to veer into the commercial or civilian realm in which I find this quote most often alluded to, E.G., "If we all gave 5 cents we could cure cancer tomorrow." Pretend most of us did give 5 cents and we did cure cancer, but you didn't give. You are now a(n) ____?... yes, I know what we call them, but what is their proper designation?



Answer



Per Merriam-Webster:



shirker: One who neglects his duty, responsibility, or obligation.



This assumes that involvement is obligatory (even if not assigned). If such was the case, avoidance — as in, not actually helping — is shirking.



The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for shirkers to shirk.



The problem to answer is inherent in the question. It is the difference between could but didn't vs should but didn't.


As I mentioned in my comment, bystanders works as a term because anyone who isn't participating is a bystander. Coward has an implication of being afraid of doing the task.



Observing the crowd, there was no difference between the bystanders and the people who could have helped but didn't. But they themselves knew. There were the shirkers: the ones who should have helped but didn't, the cowards: the ones who were afraid to get their hands dirty, the apathetic: the ones who just didn't care, and people who just liked to watch the flames dance.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more