Being despicable vs. doing despicable things

[cowboy]

Is there a difference? I've been thinking a lot about this the last few days re: the Penn State pedophile/cover-up story. In one week, JoePa went from being one of the most respected to one of the most reviled coaches in the country. People loved him because they thought he had values and character, and then we found out that his character had a flaw. The question I keep asking is this: Is he a bad person who lived behind a facade, or is he a good person who made a really bad decision?

Then a whole bunch of questions present themselves. What differentiates a bad person from a good person making a bad decision? Is it the motivation, the number of bad decisions, the consequences of any bad decision, etc? I bring this up, because I saw someone describe JoePa as despicable. Is he? I don't think any reasonable person will try to defend his actions, but the question in my mind is at what point a series of bad decisions makes a good person bad. None of us are all good or all bad, so I'm not sure where the line is - 50/50?

[Jarid in Cedar]

He is probably a good person who made a bad decision. What tracks toward despicable are the motives that prompted the decision.

[SoCalCoug]

The things we do (and sometimes the things we don't do) are what evidence what kind of a person we are. It's not a binary thing - "good" vs. "evil". It's a hugely complex thing.

We are defined by our actions. Is Joe Paterno the kind of person who would cover for a pedophile. Yep. He's also the kind of person who would give a missionary $100 because he's impressed with the whole missionary thing.

We have no way to get into Paterno's head to see what is intentions, motivations, and justifications are. We can only assess the kind of person someone is by what they do.

I have a pretty good feel for the type of people my family members, friends, and coworkers are. I have a broad base of experience and have seen their actions. The danger is assessing the kind of people public figures are, by the things we can observe them doing. There are huge parts of their lives that are closed to us, and so we don't have an accurate picture of the kind of people they really are. But we see some of the public things they do, and we naturally assume that the rest of their lives are consistent.

The farther away from you someone is, the less accurate is your assessment of their true character. I think any assessment of someone that is not based on frequent contact with and observation of that person is a fiction.

[smokymountainrain]

Perhaps it's a bit of a cop out, but I think it in a lot (most?) of cases we simply don't know if a person is a good person or a bad person just based on certain things they do or decisions they make. Paterno may fall in that category.

Also, it's is very, very, rare that would know who the good people are. In fact, outside of my immediate family I don't think I know 10 people who I can know with 100% confidence they are good people.

On the other hand, there are people we can be pretty damn sure are bad people - Sandusky would be one example. I'm sure most who knew Sandusky viewed him as a good person before finding out about this.

[ERCougar]

Perhaps it's a bit of a cop out, but I think it in a lot (most?) of cases we simply don't know if a person is a good person or a bad person just based on certain things they do or decisions they make. Paterno may fall in that category.

Also, it's is very, very, rare that would know who the good people are. In fact, outside of my immediate family I don't think I know 10 people who I can know with 100% confidence they are good people.

On the other hand, there are people we can be pretty damn sure are bad people - Sandusky would be one example. I'm sure most who knew Sandusky viewed him as a good person before finding out about this.

Which is why we're told not to judge. I know it sounds trite, but I have to remind myself of this constantly. Judge ye not. I hate that we add in the word "unrighteously"--instead, it should be "ever". I see a lot of people who do horrible things, but the fact is, I don't know where they came from, what circumstances they were facing, what life experience influenced what they did, or any other mitigating circumstances, and really, it doesn't take me that long to find some pretty despicable things that I've done. We just can't ever know. And yes, I think this extends even to the Ted Bundy's, Adolf Hitler's, etc. We can judge actions as far as their acceptability to us and society, but we can't ever judge people. Ever.

Back off of soapbox.

[kccougar]

I've been thinking similar thoughts as I've read and heard people's reactions - particularly with regard to Sandusky. I've always had a hard time with the vigilante attitude - the one that celebrates the possibility of prison rape or other such retribution.

We talk about how messed up the victims will be in this case and how much damage has been inflicted on them (rightfully so). At the same time, I think we know enough about the patterns of abuse to somewhat safely assume that people like Sandusky were likely boys in similar situations years ago and suffered similar damage.

I don't think that need mitigate proper punishment at all. In fact, I would be in favor of the death penalty for offenders like Sandusky. However, I don't think it takes away from our concern and compassion for the victims to have some sympathy for the perpetrator as well. And maybe not sympathy, but at least some sorrow for a life destroyed, even if it be solely through their own actions.

[creekster]

Which is why we're told not to judge. I know it sounds trite, but I have to remind myself of this constantly. Judge ye not. I hate that we add in the word "unrighteously"--instead, it should be "ever". I see a lot of people who do horrible things, but the fact is, I don't know where they came from, what circumstances they were facing, what life experience influenced what they did, or any other mitigating circumstances, and really, it doesn't take me that long to find some pretty despicable things that I've done. We just can't ever know. And yes, I think this extends even to the Ted Bundy's, Adolf Hitler's, etc. We can judge actions as far as their acceptability to us and society, but we can't ever judge people. Ever.

Back off of soapbox.

Did you really just say you cant judge Hitler or ted Bundy? Really?

[smokymountainrain]

Which is why we're told not to judge. I know it sounds trite, but I have to remind myself of this constantly. Judge ye not. I hate that we add in the word "unrighteously"--instead, it should be "ever". I see a lot of people who do horrible things, but the fact is, I don't know where they came from, what circumstances they were facing, what life experience influenced what they did, or any other mitigating circumstances, and really, it doesn't take me that long to find some pretty despicable things that I've done. We just can't ever know. And yes, I think this extends even to the Ted Bundy's, Adolf Hitler's, etc. We can judge actions as far as their acceptability to us and society, but we can't ever judge people. Ever.

Back off of soapbox.

I agree.

[kccougar]

Did you really just say you cant judge Hitler or ted Bundy? Really?

I can buy that. Do you honestly think either were mentally whole?

Edit: That being said, I do believe there is evil in the world.

[creekster]

I agree. I think we're safe to say guys like Sandusky and Bundy are definitely bad people, but we don't know why they became that way, which is the reason we need to be very careful, as you say, not to judge people.

But Hitler and Ted Bundy? How do you not judge those guys? AM I supposed to suspend judgment on either of them because their father abandoned them or their mother was a cold fish or whatever? There is a broad continuum of behavior and causes that is almost all colored gray. But on the extremes there is still a sliver of black and white and I think that Hitler and Bundy and a few others are found there.

[smokymountainrain]

But Hitler and Ted Bundy? How do you not judge those guys? AM I supposed to suspend judgment on either of them because their father abandoned them or their mother was a cold fish or whatever? There is a broad continuum of behavior and causes that is almost all colored gray. But on the extremes there is still a sliver of black and white and I think that Hitler and Bundy and a few others are found there.

Fair question. I just deleted that part of my post because I realized it didn't make much sense. I'm not sure how to articulate my thoughts on the matter - I'll just leave it that we need to very careful with our judgments.

[ERCougar]

Did you really just say you cant judge Hitler or ted Bundy? Really?

Yup.

Why do you need to?

EDIT: By the way, I'm not saying I pull this off--like I said, I have to tell myself this ALL the time. I obviously don't encounter Hitler or Bundy, or really anyone on the same level, so that's pretty theoretical, but I catch myself all the time thinking or saying "you're a dirtbag". That's the practical application that becomes hard.

Example: Child abusers. Drunk drivers. I see these all the time. I'm very tempted to classify them as evil, dirtbags, whatever. Yet really, do I know I wouldn't do the same thing had I been raised in the same broken home or culture, or faced with the same day-to-day challenges? I know this isn't what the OP was getting at, but I just think we'd all be happier if we spent more time trying to understand and less time trying to pass useless judgement on people. Even child abusers are children of God. I've shared this before on here, but I spent some time in residency attending a support group for "recovered/recovering" sexual abuse perpetrators. Yes, what they did was awful, but it's an interesting experience to view the other side of the coin for a few moments. It's never useful to dehumanize a human being.

Ok...now I'm really back off my soap box.

[UtahDan]

It is pretty common to hear a person who has done something horrific, or the people who love them say, "but he/she is not a bad person." I hear that all the time from people who, similarly, have committed a crime and complain about being "treated like a criminal." Because in their minds those acts don't define them. Of course, for the rest of us they often do.

I'm with creekster that I don't have a problem with judging those who have done deplorable things as being "bad people." I do believe the Christian teaching that we should be very conservative in our judgments, but I also think that stigmas that attach to certain acts are an important part of how societies self police.

I think we can all think of examples of people who have awful things but also truly wonderful things. I think that illustrates that all of us are capable of great good and great evil and that the ability to do both can co-exist, sometimes even moment to moment. In that sense all of us are both good and evil, good and bad people. But to me the power of the descriptor "bad person" is in the idea that they have manifested the evil that is inside of all of us and not controlled their impulses. Calling someone that does not necessarily mean they are incapable of good, but it conveys the important part which is the they have done evil.

With all that, I think people should be very slow on the one hand to call evil the common frailties we all have,even including some crimes, and should readily forgive (see, I paid attention growing up). But we should also not be afraid to say that some acts are evil and that the people who do them are bad people. This doesn't translate to completely denying their humanity and treating them as subhuman. But as I say, I do think the stigma that accompanies the worst acts is a good thing and con coexist with a continued recognition that the person who did it is still human and may even have redeeming qualities.

[Borg]

This is a verrry interesting topic. I brought this up once upon a time many moons ago on CG.

This is so blurry, and so hard to figure out, and that is why we are told by the Savior 'judge not'. But, one has to make decisions based on what they know, and use their best discretion for their own safety and the safety of others in their family etc. So, in that sense, we 'have to judge' as I can not look the other way if I was to have a convicted child molestor move in next door and allow my child to play at his house. Obviously, that would be serious neglect on my part. So...I have to "judge" my future actions and decisions upon what I know.

I will abstain from "judging" that person on his eternal outcome..but then again, I have no authority in that regard. I could pronounce judgement on anyone "you're going to hell" ...but, it is meaningless and without substance.

I also believe evil to exist in the world. Those that don't believe in a God, will refute that and think it is silly. So, in that regard that I believe in a God, and therefore believe in an evil presence in the world....my dilemma is just "when does evil enter into a person and take hold of and influence their decisions and behavior"?

We read about it all the time in the New Testament...is it not going on today in our world? Surely so...and probably more pronounced as the population is so much greater.

It's an interesting thing to contemplate.

[jay santos]

When I think of this topic, I always think of the film Butterfly Effect. It's hard to put the phrase "deeply profound philosophy" and Ashton Kutcher in the same sentence, but this is the one case where you can. The film shows alternate futures for the main characters based on slightly different experiences, and the results are drastic (ie the good character guy changes to a morally bankrupt person) but very believable. I agree we can't judge people, even Hitler and Ted Bundy, though it's hard not to judge Sandusky in this horrible story.