Everything understood by the term co-operation is in some sense an evil.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is cooperation with good.
Evil, when we are in its power, is not felt as evil, but as a necessity, even a duty.
What we call 'evil' doesn't necessarily deserve any kind of respect or understanding, by any means; it just deserves an acknowledgement of its complexity so we can better understand it - so we can help prevent it.
If co-operation is a duty, I hold that non-co-operation also under certain conditions is equally a duty.
Most of the evil of the world comes about not out of evil motives, but somebody saying 'get with the program, be a team player;' this is what we saw at Enron, this is what we saw in the Nixon administration with their scandal.
Evil, by definition, is that which endangers the good, and the good is what we perceive as a value.
Sometimes the right response to evil is an appeal to powerful and effective social organization - an appeal to civilization itself.
To do no evil is good, to intend none better.
Some things must be good in themselves, else there could be no measure whereby to lay out good and evil.
Evil is unintelligible. It is just a thing in itself, like boarding a crowded commuter train wearing only a giant boa constrictor. There is no context which would make it explicable.