Current Events > Lets say two men amount to the same amount of goodness in the course of a year.

(+) Yeah! (+)

However you measure goodness, just imagine these two people are the same.

Not imagine one of the men used to be bad - criminal, racist, just a general dick, however you want to imagine it. He used to be a bad person, but has since reformed himself and dedicates to doing good.

The other man has been roughly the same level of good his entire life, with ups and downs but always being a good person.

Is one man better or worse than the other? Why or why not? What would change your opinion of either?

I suppose it depends on the lasting fallout of either of those actions to where we can call them good and to what extent we can call them that. Here we would be separating goodness from morality which does not outwardly affect anyone else.

---

OctilIery posted...

Is one man better or worse than the other? Why or why not? What would change your opinion of either?

Why are judging them on?
Because that's the only way you'll get an answer.
If we take account into the previous bad things then non bad things man is better. Otherwise it's equal.
---

One man does genocide

Alt-right: This guy is good now he's better than this other guy who's been doing good his entire life!

this sounds like something catholics do

quantify godliness
---

If I've learned anything from The Good Place it's that it literally doesn't matter because the scoring system is fucked up and everyone goes to the bad place.
---

OctilIery posted...

However you measure goodness, just imagine these two people are the same.

Not imagine one of the men used to be bad - criminal, racist, just a general dick, however you want to imagine it. He used to be a bad person, but has since reformed himself and dedicates to doing good.

The other man has been roughly the same level of good his entire life, with ups and downs but always being a good person.

Is one man better or worse than the other? Why or why not? What would change your opinion of either?

In this use case, the guy who has been good his entire life is better, because they've contributed far more "goodness" to the rest of the world. That doesn't mean the two should be treated differently, but if we're measuring people's "goodness" then it's pretty easy to objectively compare two of them by that metric.
---

Hexenherz posted...

If I've learned anything from The Good Place it's that it literally doesn't matter because the scoring system is fucked up and everyone goes to the bad place.

Mindy St. Claire tho
---

RdVEHfJqAvUPIbk posted...

OctilIery posted...

Is one man better or worse than the other? Why or why not? What would change your opinion of either?

Why are judging them on?
Because that's the only way you'll get an answer.
If we take account into the previous bad things then non bad things man is better. Otherwise it's equal.

I'm intentionally avoiding specifics to discuss the morality behind the issue. Can good deeds outweigh bad? Does rising from a bad place make you a better person than being in the good place already? Does it take more good deeds for a reformed man to be as good as an already good man? Just an interesting idea that came to me.

s0nicfan posted...

OctilIery posted...

However you measure goodness, just imagine these two people are the same.

Not imagine one of the men used to be bad - criminal, racist, just a general dick, however you want to imagine it. He used to be a bad person, but has since reformed himself and dedicates to doing good.

The other man has been roughly the same level of good his entire life, with ups and downs but always being a good person.

Is one man better or worse than the other? Why or why not? What would change your opinion of either?

In this use case, the guy who has been good his entire life is better, because they've contributed far more "goodness" to the rest of the world. That doesn't mean the two should be treated differently, but if we're measuring people's "goodness" then it's pretty easy to objectively compare two of them by that metric.

What about a guy who is good, but sinks and never reforms? Assuming he does the same amount of good and bad across his lifetime as the reformed man, are they equal? Is one better?

Hanky_Bannister posted...

this sounds like something catholics do

quantify godliness

Only in a strictly theoretical sense. Doing it in specifics would leave a bad taste in my mouth.

OctilIery posted...

s0nicfan posted...

OctilIery posted...

However you measure goodness, just imagine these two people are the same.

Not imagine one of the men used to be bad - criminal, racist, just a general dick, however you want to imagine it. He used to be a bad person, but has since reformed himself and dedicates to doing good.

The other man has been roughly the same level of good his entire life, with ups and downs but always being a good person.

Is one man better or worse than the other? Why or why not? What would change your opinion of either?

In this use case, the guy who has been good his entire life is better, because they've contributed far more "goodness" to the rest of the world. That doesn't mean the two should be treated differently, but if we're measuring people's "goodness" then it's pretty easy to objectively compare two of them by that metric.

What about a guy who is good, but sinks and never reforms? Assuming he does the same amount of good and bad across his lifetime as the reformed man, are they equal? Is one better?

In this case I'd say they were equal over the course of their lifetimes. Neither is better, although at different points one was instantaneously better than the other and vice versa.

To your other questions:
Can good deeds outweigh bad?
--yes, obviously, because it depends on the severity of the deed. If you had the ability to measure goodness you could easily show which good deeds summed up to more than the cost of the bad deeds.
Does rising from a bad place make you a better person than being in the good place already?
--It might make the person a harder working person, at least in terms of intrapersonal development, but it doesn't make the person better.
Does it take more good deeds for a reformed man to be as good as an already good man?
--Again, if we have the ability to measure goodness, then obviously it does.
---

OctilIery posted...

I'm intentionally avoiding specifics to discuss the morality behind the issue

then you're missing the point of the discussion. But you got some people taking the bait so well done
---

RdVEHfJqAvUPIbk posted...

OctilIery posted...

I'm intentionally avoiding specifics to discuss the morality behind the issue

then you're missing the point of the discussion. But you got some people taking the bait so well done

I literally started the discussion, how am I missing the point? And what bait is there?

Redemption is admirable in itself.

---

Shablagoo posted...

Redemption is admirable in itself.

Yup, and stagnancy is bad. So is a good man less good because he's always been the same good and never improved or grown?

Depends on your religious views sometimes too.

Generally speaking Id say both are equal in a really general sense. Yes one was in bad, but it takes something, courage maybe, effort, regret/remorse, to get out of it. Stuff the other need not have faced.

Also Ive seen many people I considered to be examples of goodness do 180s after having been so easily misled. While others who came from more troubled paths become really good people who know evil when they see it because they lived it before and know it for the illusion that it is. In that way they are more than just good, they are also potentially more resiliently good.

the prodigal son
---