This thread prompts me to ask the question: Can people change, and if so, should they be forgiven? One of the stories from that thread involves a lawyer for the mob who turns against his former employers to do all that law-and-order stuff, to leave a good memory for his kid. Maybe that makes him a decent guy in the end, maybe not. Maybe it depends on completely arbitrary judgements, whether the good someone does outweighs the bad they have done. Would Adolph Hitler suddenly be a good guy if, in the end, he had swum out into the surf to save a drowing kid? Would that make him a good guy, in the end? If a surgeon saves lives every single day at work, but once a month heads out at night and rapes someone, does his good work outweight the bad, should he be left free to save lives? Is there a strict rule, or is it different in every case? And if different in every case, who gets to decide, and how, what is acceptable?
Yes, but with morality, there is a certain extreme that simply cannot be forgiven for...as in raping so many and killing so many. He was in greed of money, which made his life very easy. And he was outstanding in performing his job. Maybe he just came across Al Capone... Everyone would take the easiest path, well most people. But once he performed his job, he had to protect Al Capone continously, because once he refuses in a given time and withdraws, he probably would have been murdered. But what he did in the end, I would say, deems him as a decent man, with some good in him that he could've done good. It is the things that people care about that cause them to do good. No...for what he did in life he has too many sins, or wrongs. It is the things that people care about that cause them to do good. So if Hitler cared for the kid, he would save him and risk his life. And that is good. But he didn't give a crap about the Jews. For example, you treat a friend real good, but you don't so much to the other. But your friend that was treated good believes you are a good person, but your another friend says you're alright. It the way you treat people. I would say he's one twisted SOB, and you have given a difficult situation. He knows it is wrong yet he does it, there is a moral conflict there. If he stops and realizes his actions, then yes, he can make reparations to society for that and compensate for his actions. He should be restricted, or replaced. But if he is so good, then he should be kept from commiting rapes. People can decide for themselves, but some people are good to others, while mean to others. it's the natural prejudice in us that causes that, no one can be all loving. But if it is a community's matter, a jury will decide that...and that's how the law works.
Could be a "standard" issue I'll elaborate later, but let me just say this. What makes a statement true? Everything related and within the context of the statement MUST be true in order for it to be deemed "true." But if it contains any ONE sign of falseness to it, would you call it a "true" statement? No of course not. It's a standard that is upheld. Maybe it could be applied to how we perceive good and bad to be.
As I see it, to make the transformation from good to bad you have to be sorry for ANY bad you did. Therefore, Hitler saving a kid doesn't apply if he didn't attempt or at least wish to attempt to stop his ridiculously evil policies. The example of the surgeon would likely be more complicated as he would probably have cared nothing for the patients he was saving and only the money that was rolling it. It's not likely that one understands good if they are capable of blatantly bad actions. If you can empathize with people and wish to help them then why in hell would you rape someone? Now then, what is good and bad? Who wants to play Socrates and break this statement down as Chosen was implying?
I would like to think it is different in every case. You have to take the crime and you have to take the criminal. But I firmly believe that even if a person has never jaywalked before, yet kills their own children - they deserve to die just as a repeat offender would. Okay lets take Westerfield as an example. He is 50 years old and never committed a crime (or has never been caught). He is a respectable citizen. Yet one night he kidnaps, rapes, tortures and blugeons to death a 7 year old girl. Now, there is no doubt that he is ultimately "bad" - but since is the only crime, does it make him less bad than someone who is in and out of prisons their whole life? Or maybe he always had these thoughts and fantasies but was always too scared to carry them out. Does this make more bad? Okay, I've just confused myself again, hate it when that happensPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"Does the good we do outweigh the bad? Still thinking on this (a very big question) but when I lived in Thailand it was very common that people who'd been a bit naughty one day, and knew it, would say that they'd do something extra good the next, to make up for it. The ultimate outcome of this being to come out a bit ahead at the end of the Ultimate Day and come back in the next life a bit further up the ladder, or whatever. So really it was a matter of checks and balances and a bit of interest accrued, depending on how much was going in on the plus side. Of course, someone like Adolf Hitler couldn't possibly live long enough to come out on the plus side. And thinking about this: ... are people like Hitler inherently more evil than others or is it that they have the capacity (the position of power, or whatever) to do more evil than others? Therefore, is one small act of kindness less worthy simply because it was the only good act within someone's power to perform? What exactly is the weight system...? Which gets back to your question...
Hi Adam I like your question so I'll throw in my two cents. The only way I can answer the question is to draw on my own experience with people, and how I would view someone who has done horrible stuff and then does something good. In my own case - and I think most people are of similar minds - I would like to find the good in people when I meet them. It would highly unlikely that I would hate someone on sight, but then I have met people whom I've disliked immediately for no good reason; possibly that's instinct, but no one really knows. Similarly, there are people that I find enchanting immediately. I understand that this is not quite the answer you're looking for so I'll give an example of what I think you're looking for. I worked with someone for years and we never ever got along. The person was abrasive, rude, loud and unpleasant. Then one day we happened to get stuck in an elevator together alone. After being trapped for hours we've worked out our differences and found that the circumstances surounding our feeling toward one another are due to outside influences. It turned out that the malice of other people had caused us to never fully go to the trouble of getting to know one another. During the hours trapped in the elevator, we found that our feelings towards one another were caused by misinformation, and neither of us could ever confirm any allegations due to clever manipulations by a third party. So now, the person I had hated for years has had the slate wiped clean and feels the same toward me. I guess my point is that every situation is different. The way people feel toward one another is the sum of their whole lifetime experiences culminating in the way they interact with one another. So measurement of good outweighing bad is entirely unique in each situation. I hope I've written a coherent post, because I have insomnia and my mind is in a thousand places at once. Have a good day. Cheers. Teri
I think that premeditated concerns like "how good do you have to be" and "does the good outweigh the bad" are the dangerous products of not caring. If you care enough about others and about decency, I don't think you'll have to overly focus on whether or not you're doing enough good...you'll just do it. If a person reaches a point in their life that they can outgrow or overcome thier selfishness and pursuit of instant gratification, doesn't that make them essentially good, and won't they do good things? I think being good comes before doing good. I also think that, in becoming good, you will feel sorry for the rotten things you've done...whether or not you can put that stuff behind you is another turning point in a person's "transformation". I would also think this would answer the question of motivation...if you're good because you care, and because you're not impaired by selfishness, then yeah, you're doing things for the right reasons. That doctor guy blows.
Another thought, When I look at the question the other way around - does the bad we do outweigh the good? - as in the doctor scenario, then my feelings toward the doctor change dramatically. Looking at it from this angle, if the doctor goes out and rapes someone, then any lives he's saved previously do not redeem his actions at all. Same with the hitler thing, so he saves some kid from drowning once, big deal.... the results and consequences of the rest of his actions define him as the monster he was.
Trust people We should be careful to remove this issue too far from common sense. You can't create a mathematical formula like a>b and say that's that. People who know what being good means and looks like, will be able to see if someone is doing 'good' or 'bad'. You can't fake it. There's a word for it: hypocrisy. People will know. The problem is that we like to judge. We like to say: he did this and this, so he's evil. If you know what's right, you have to tell people that (governments try to do that with laws), but everyone also have an internal evil-o-meter (conscience/morals) that tells them whether someone is doing right or wrong. This scale depends on society. Society depends on trust and forgiveness. Everybody eventually does something wrong. It's what you know beforehand that determines 'how' wrong. I think people have become so selfish that they don't see or don't care what people think or do, and the law has to take care of our ethical responsibilities. We have to trust the law more and more, and think of more black or white rules, until you can't really tell anymore, because everything has an excuse or a loophole. I like Walker's comment...
Re: Re: Does the good we do outweigh the bad we do? Why? Peace. __________________ Youth is the first victim of war - the first fruit of peace. It takes 20 years or more of peace to make a man; it takes only 20 seconds of war to destroy him. -- King Boudewijn I, King of Belgium (1934-1993)
