The measure of a person

[poxpower]

Often, in defense of certain people or organizations, you hear all the good they've done. All the great policies they have passed while in power, the great charities they have started or the deeds they have done to help others.

But what's REALLY the measure of a person? It seems to me that we care MUCH MORE about the evil a person DIDN'T DO than about the good someone did.

If you kill someone, you will get life in prison, no matter what else you did. So in that respect, can't it be said that a person who does no good in his life is better than a saint for killed one man when he was 50, after serving his community for decades?

What is the measure of a person, really?
Is it really the good vs the evil? Or simply the avoidance of evil, without the need to do extra legwork to be good?

[nehemiah135]

well the measure of a person is based off of the good and bad things they've done. but certain things can never be repayed back. such as murder because that person's family will be missing that person forever. but if you did something remarkably good then did something sorta bad your reputation, u could say, would go down because people like to talk about the bad things that people have done rather than the good things. if one person went through the whole neighborhood and cleaned up everyone's yard then another day he went out and tried to steal a pack of candy from a corner store do you think people would talk about the neighborhood pickup or the time when he tried to steal candy. but when in a debate about this person the optimists would look at the good he did and everyone else would talk about the candy thing. because that's the nature of human being's. bad things are more appealing to talk about then good. but when you've done something bad it takes a lot of good deeds to make people forget about that.

[TDwizBang]

in the cartoon metalocolypse there is an episode where its employee appreciation day and toki wants to ask a question... "What, are, you, as, deathclock employeee" and the minion says "to never do a bad job, but always a good" (or something like that)

now despite the fact he is a minion doing the works of "evil" he has the exact standards as anyone will expect of another human, and i am sure he is held in high regards with his peers. so going back to the 50 year old preacher killing someone in his scenerio he did a bad job in the standards of the line of work he was in... Now i know the line of work dosnt matter and my example was a cartoon but what i am trying to get across is its always a personal question with each situation.

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 7/16/09 10:02 PM, poxpower wrote: Often, in defense of certain people or organizations, you hear all the good they've done. All the great policies they have passed while in power, the great charities they have started or the deeds they have done to help others.

All these things reflect upon character, what makes us each individuals and provides a background from which our incriminating action or actions arise. Whether or not that would help justify the "evil" deed is an entirely different matter, legally or morally.

But what's REALLY the measure of a person? It seems to me that we care MUCH MORE about the evil a person DIDN'T DO than about the good someone did.

If you kill someone, you will get life in prison, no matter what else you did. So in that respect, can't it be said that a person who does no good in his life is better than a saint for killed one man when he was 50, after serving his community for decades?

I don't think I completely understand the correlation. Orenthal James didn't do evil by becoming a football standout and thus acquiring adoration by certain wide and diverse blocs, but that beloved status (and money) helped him cheat a prison sentence. But then, when does the law differentiate between saints and sinners when determining the legality of any act?

It's a rabbit hole that starts with seatbelt laws and ends with soylents of varying color.

What is the measure of a person, really?

What they do with their time to who for what reasons.

Is it really the good vs the evil? Or simply the avoidance of evil, without the need to do extra legwork to be good?

It's only as simple as you make it. You need the right tool, namely perspective, for whatever situation reality throws at you. "Am I online?" is a good one, just behind "Am I dreaming?" and "Is he serious?"

Each and every encounter you have is subject to interpretation, the more authoritative, historically, the truer it becomes.

It's all relative, and also dependent :)

[TheReno]

The measure of a man is not by the solitary act, but his actions as a whole. NCIS did a show on this very topic. This marine vetran who fought against the japs in world war 2 comes in claiming he murdered someone. Now this man got into a bad fight where he wound up being pinned in a cave with jap soldiers charging his position. He ran out of ammo and used his shovel to fight them off. When they finally got to him he had 23 soldiers around him that he killed, and he continued to serve his country with honor. Now hes old and his wife is dead and he is slightly forgetful. Gibbs wants to opt out of persuing this any further because the man went through hell and came back alive. But the higher ups want to do the investigation because its a law (and their assholes xD). So what the law says has no bearing on a mans measure, just what he does.

Take a farmer who was born on that farm, grew up on the farm, took over the farm and made good money, not alot but enough, and passed it on to his son and died. Now theres nothing wrong, he abided by the law and tried to not argue if he could and never fought unless struck. Id say while not the most glamourous of lives, he lived an honest one.

But say instead of not arguing, he supported strongly things people in this town didnt like. Nothing illegal, just against the general feeling of the town, and say they asked him to not push his views on people and he did, causing a majority of the fights he got into. Id say while it had its faults, it was still an honest life.

Now lets say he was a drunk (adding to it each time if you can see that). He got drunk every night and he was an angry drunk. Not the most honest of lives, but at least he provided for his family.

And finally, say before he took over the farm he was in the marines and fought in the heaviest engagements this war had to offer before coming home to run the farm. And he drinks to try to forget the things he saw. He did the best he could given what he had to do for his country and was more honest for trying, then running.

Not the singular acts that matter, but the whole.

[Cables]

I don't think you should judge people good or bad at all, just there actions themselves.
So if a man cures 1,000 people, and kills 1,000 people, does that mean that the former is any less great?
No.

[poxpower]

ok let's try it this way:

Would you rather live in a city with a man who does nothing but give and give all his life then flips out and murders his wife, or in a city with people who don't do anything special but who just abide by the law?

Or even simpler: would you rather everyone be super-nice and productive, but with random chances of going apeshit at any time and drowning a kid in concrete, or would you rather have everyone just sit around with their thumb up their ass doing nothing bad.

[Cables]

At 7/17/09 02:51 AM, poxpower wrote: ok let's try it this way:

Would you rather live in a city with a man who does nothing but give and give all his life then flips out and murders his wife, or in a city with people who don't do anything special but who just abide by the law?

Or even simpler: would you rather everyone be super-nice and productive, but with random chances of going apeshit at any time and drowning a kid in concrete, or would you rather have everyone just sit around with their thumb up their ass doing nothing bad.

Even if you do, or see terrible acts, at least you have done or seen acts.
I'd rather the tragedy be the action rather then the lack of action.

The man who kills his wife, but gives and gives and gives is much better.

[Alphabit]

If an otherwise kind person committed a crime as serious as murder, then perhaps that would make you question their motives for being so kind in the first place. Someone who genuinely enjoys serving others would never commit a crime against them - it wouldn't make sense (unless that person is mentally insane).

I think there are varying degrees of self-servitude; some people live entirely for themselves and nobody else, while some others spend a large portion of their life for the benefit of others (like parents and their children). If you spend a genuine portion of your life for the benefit of others, then there is no reason why you would do something as selfish as murder someone.

[Elfer]

Sorry bro, you don't get to bank up good behaviour then trade it in for a free murder.

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 7/17/09 07:44 AM, Elfer wrote: Sorry bro, you don't get to bank up good behaviour then trade it in for a free murder.

Yeah, no matter how many PSA's railing against violence you champion beforehand.

Given the choice, would I rather live with fake humanitarians who murder or solitary self-serving singles who merely pay taxes, I'd have to choose the latter.

Does this have something to do with Brarack's proposed "mandatory volunteerism" requirement?

[Ericho]

You can't be a saint and be alive at the same time and I think you'd simply lose your sainthood after killing someone.
Oh, you were speaking figuratively.
Anyway, I think that is a good point. We need to pay more attention to the good things people do and not just the lack of bad things. Of course, we could also apply the opposite by saying that a lack of good things a person does means they're bad even if they never did anything that was technically "bad" or something like that.

[Elfer]

Also, you seem very uninterested in the idea of people who not only don't do bad stuff, but do good stuff as well.

They are held in substantially higher regard than people who do nothing for others.

[butsbutsbutsbutsbuts]

I think utilitarianism is what you're after, basically the outcome of people's outcomes determine whether they did good or evil. The only problem with utilitarianism are the human errors when people try to calculate what is the "greater good", if people are accurate though then they are totally ethical.

For instance a doctor should not be allowed to kill someone even though he may have saved more lives that he has killed because the punishing people for murder maintains a deterant against murder which does more good than letting doctors kill who they want as long as they don't exceed the number of people they saved.