"Active Evil is better than Passive Good"

William Blake’s assertion that "Active Evil is better than Passive Good" invites a deep reflection on the complexities of human morality and the consequences of action versus inaction. By juxtaposing “active evil” with “passive good,” Blake challenges the commonly accepted moral hierarchy that places all manifestations of goodness above every form of evil. Here, he prioritizes engagement and agency, even when directed toward malevolent ends, over mere abstention or neutrality, which may stem from apathy, fear, or moral laziness.

Active evil, through its very activity, at least acknowledges the existence of moral conflict and human will. It is visible, recognizable, and therefore tangible, society can confront, understand, and attempt to correct or transform it. Those who commit active evil are exercising choice and agency, albeit negatively; their actions enter the social consciousness, potentially provoking responses, resistance, or reform.

On the other hand, passive good, while appearing harmless, is fraught with dangers of its own. Passivity in the face of wrongdoing can signify acceptance, surrender, or complicity. When good people do nothing, evil is allowed to flourish unchecked. The absence of action or engagement, cloaked as goodness, may simply be a refusal to confront uncomfortable truths or a desire to maintain personal comfort at the expense of justice. Passive good does not resist oppression, does not challenge injustice, and often merely upholds the status quo.

Blake’s provocative ranking suggests that moral vitality, even when expressed destructively, holds more transformative potential than inert virtue. He urges people to take a stand, to act, to participate in the moral life of the world, even at the risk of error. The greatest threat to ethical progress may not be the existence of evil, but the widespread complacency and silence of those who refuse to act for good.