The Cellar - View Single Post

it · 09-12-2015, 03:55 AM

Not yet, but... It brings up a very interesting question IMO, that really shuns a lot of light on the question of how you judge people: Is it possible - at all - to become the president and not be evil?

If we agree that people are to be judged by their actions, then evil isn't a matter of motive or personality.... Even when it includes matters of personality as inflouncing attributes - a psychopath or a pedophile or a rapists aren't evil until the first time they act on it. Likewise, Hitler was probably a relatively decent person prior to taking over Germany. On the same vein, someone can have decent motives and try their best to do well by others but then one day makes a bad decision that causes more harm then good.

But that brings another question - how do you scale it? Do certain amoral actions automatically make you evil, or is it a matter of balance? Would someone who murdered 50 people but saved the lives of 200 be a better person then someone who has done neither?

Then there's a matter of how you judge someone's responsibility and agency, how you judge non-action choices, how do you judge accidents or conflicting intentions, how do you relate it to the circumstances, et...

Depending on how you answer all of the above, you might very well be able to determine that the moment obama came into office he became responsible for every wrongful death in America which can be related to the federal government.

09-12-2015, 03:55 AM	#88
it Banned Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 772	Not yet, but... It brings up a very interesting question IMO, that really shuns a lot of light on the question of how you judge people: Is it possible - at all - to become the president and not be evil? If we agree that people are to be judged by their actions, then evil isn't a matter of motive or personality.... Even when it includes matters of personality as inflouncing attributes - a psychopath or a pedophile or a rapists aren't evil until the first time they act on it. Likewise, Hitler was probably a relatively decent person prior to taking over Germany. On the same vein, someone can have decent motives and try their best to do well by others but then one day makes a bad decision that causes more harm then good. But that brings another question - how do you scale it? Do certain amoral actions automatically make you evil, or is it a matter of balance? Would someone who murdered 50 people but saved the lives of 200 be a better person then someone who has done neither? Then there's a matter of how you judge someone's responsibility and agency, how you judge non-action choices, how do you judge accidents or conflicting intentions, how do you relate it to the circumstances, et... Depending on how you answer all of the above, you might very well be able to determine that the moment obama came into office he became responsible for every wrongful death in America which can be related to the federal government.