The Value of An Individual

I’ve noticed a disturbing trend. I’ve noticed that no matter the value of a person’s contributions or previous virtue in society, all this is erased the moment a person is suspected or confirmed as one of today’s taboo things to be. Ie: homophobic, misogynist, transphobic, racist.

I don’t agree with this at all. I think prior/current virtue and contributions matter and such positions are just that, positions. It’s no reason to discount a person and transform them into some type of terrorist. For clarification, I refer to those who don’t commit violence because of their taboo views.

Opinions?

Tempest Nox wrote: I’ve noticed a disturbing trend. I’ve noticed that no matter the value of a person’s contributions or previous virtue in society, all this is erased the moment a person is suspected or confirmed as one of today’s taboo things to be. Ie: homophobic, misogynist, transphobic, racist.

I don’t agree with this at all. I think prior/current virtue and contributions matter and such positions are just that, positions. It’s no reason to discount a person and transform them into some type of terrorist. For clarification, I refer to those who don’t commit violence because of their taboo views.

Opinions?

If you haven't read it, I think you'd appreciate "Death of the Author".

I think everyone should decide for themselves in such cases, if a decision is even warranted. Who cares what person x a thousand miles away may or may not have done?

I don't think we are even capable of making those calls and any opinion we form has more to do with ourselves than the individual in question. Humans understood on some level that we can not really decide if a person is overall good or bad and that a higher understanding than we have, AFTER the whole life has been spent, would find the need for and the wisdom too make that distinction. By letting one into the pearly gates or weighing ones heart on a scale against a feather, our higher thinkers and philosophers have accepted that ultimately any decision we make has more to do with appeasing our fears than any search for truth or fairness. Its easy to demonize an exterior source for our suffering or to prop up our own personal, failing morality.

I guess in a round about way I agree with you.

Two masters meet on the road - one pours tea one stands to fight - by their actions - which is the master which is not? Jeddist are people. You either get fleas or not depending on where ya tuck your toes hu? You either are labeled by the glow of your saber or how you use it. Sith - Jeddist - Light - dark - - I see your point- but sit at at the table you wanna eat and converse at. Your choice to frequent what you will. Right ?

Vale of the individual is a great thing - the power of the person. The human potential is awesome and at the same time exactly opposite of that.
There’s a story - kid has a hot dog stand some one calls it in. Haters ! Food people come - ( the individuals NOT the company state or country make a decision on their own .) Instead of closing and making dramma a they got the kid up to code payed for licenses n such and he makes 150 dogs a day @ 3 dollars a pop not counting soda and chips.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SqTSe9jPIY0

Oceans of hate or one ounce of grace ... can make the difference. So - the human potential is one of the greatest and most sharpest things to grow or hack some one with. U think ?

rugadd wrote: I think everyone should decide for themselves in such cases, if a decision is even warranted. Who cares what person x a thousand miles away may or may not have done?

I don't think we are even capable of making those calls and any opinion we form has more to do with ourselves than the individual in question. Humans understood on some level that we can not really decide if a person is overall good or bad and that a higher understanding than we have, AFTER the whole life has been spent, would find the need for and the wisdom too make that distinction. By letting one into the pearly gates or weighing ones heart on a scale against a feather, our higher thinkers and philosophers have accepted that ultimately any decision we make has more to do with appeasing our fears than any search for truth or fairness. Its easy to demonize an exterior source for our suffering or to prop up our own personal, failing morality.

I guess in a round about way I agree with you.

I don’t agree that the value of a person should be decided by how good or compassionate they are painted to be (heart feather thing).

Also, back to my original point... If the person who cures cancer turns out to be a racist white guy who hates homosexuality, he still cured cancer, didn’t he?

What if he writes books supporting racial purity and genocide of people who aren’t of that race as a valid solution? He’s not murdering anyone, mind you. What then?

In my opinion, he still cured cancer and if the reward for that is a peace prize or such, he should be given it. Why? He cured cancer. Simple, isn’t it?

Tempest Nox wrote:

rugadd wrote: I think everyone should decide for themselves in such cases, if a decision is even warranted. Who cares what person x a thousand miles away may or may not have done?

I don't think we are even capable of making those calls and any opinion we form has more to do with ourselves than the individual in question. Humans understood on some level that we can not really decide if a person is overall good or bad and that a higher understanding than we have, AFTER the whole life has been spent, would find the need for and the wisdom too make that distinction. By letting one into the pearly gates or weighing ones heart on a scale against a feather, our higher thinkers and philosophers have accepted that ultimately any decision we make has more to do with appeasing our fears than any search for truth or fairness. Its easy to demonize an exterior source for our suffering or to prop up our own personal, failing morality.

I guess in a round about way I agree with you.

I don’t agree that the value of a person should be decided by how good or compassionate they are painted to be (heart feather thing).

Also, back to my original point... If the person who cures cancer turns out to be a racist white guy who hates homosexuality, he still cured cancer, didn’t he?

What if he writes books supporting racial purity and genocide of people who aren’t of that race as a valid solution? He’s not murdering anyone, mind you. What then?

In my opinion, he still cured cancer and if the reward for that is a peace prize or such, he should be given it. Why? He cured cancer. Simple, isn’t it?

Credit can be a name in a by line or a huge parade or neither.

Tempest Nox wrote:

rugadd wrote: I think everyone should decide for themselves in such cases, if a decision is even warranted. Who cares what person x a thousand miles away may or may not have done?

I don't think we are even capable of making those calls and any opinion we form has more to do with ourselves than the individual in question. Humans understood on some level that we can not really decide if a person is overall good or bad and that a higher understanding than we have, AFTER the whole life has been spent, would find the need for and the wisdom too make that distinction. By letting one into the pearly gates or weighing ones heart on a scale against a feather, our higher thinkers and philosophers have accepted that ultimately any decision we make has more to do with appeasing our fears than any search for truth or fairness. Its easy to demonize an exterior source for our suffering or to prop up our own personal, failing morality.

I guess in a round about way I agree with you.

I don’t agree that the value of a person should be decided by how good or compassionate they are painted to be (heart feather thing).

Also, back to my original point... If the person who cures cancer turns out to be a racist white guy who hates homosexuality, he still cured cancer, didn’t he?

What if he writes books supporting racial purity and genocide of people who aren’t of that race as a valid solution? He’s not murdering anyone, mind you. What then?

In my opinion, he still cured cancer and if the reward for that is a peace prize or such, he should be given it. Why? He cured cancer. Simple, isn’t it?

I think it's possible to appreciate the good while still being critical of the bad. My favorite "Doctor", Tom Baker, obviously, gave a memorable performance as "The Doctor", but, if we only looked at Tom Baker, The Man, well, he abandoned his family to pursue acting, and at one point attacked his mother-in-law with garden sheers.

There is a difference, though, in seeing the bad through the good- if otherwise good work suddenly looks different in light of knowing more about the person themselves, well, that may or may not be worthy of deeper examination, but can't be determined without doing so, necessarily. If something of the bad is reflected in the good, is it still good?

Othertimes... Well, look at what we (the internet) did to Stephanie Meyer; all she did was write some silly books and we turned it into a narrative of "Stephanie Meyer; Bad Person", even though she hasn't actually said or done anything to warrant the vitriol sent her way.

For starters, the inherent value of all humans should be the same.

As for the socially assigned value, it is based on contribution and is both a measure of merit and trust. If someone cures cancer, but you can’t trust they won’t deny minorities treatment, then the social value is assigned as a whole.

TL,DR: individuals who have great merits but are socially divisive will not be trusted with greater awards of leadership.

Manu wrote: For starters, the inherent value of all humans should be the same.

As for the socially assigned value, it is based on contribution and is both a measure of merit and trust. If someone cures cancer, but you can’t trust they won’t deny minorities treatment, then the social value is assigned as a whole.

TL,DR: individuals who have great merits but are socially divisive will not be trusted with greater awards of leadership.

He cured cancer. He doesn’t get to legislate who receives the cure and who doesn’t. Least, that’s not part of my example.

I concur with Manu's sentiment, and would like to elaborate a little.

What honor may be due to each of us in life is attributable to our composite character ... our values and deeds congealed into one holistic definition of who we are. "Every saint has a past; every sinner, a future" runs an old saying, and the character of any of us cannot be summarized by regarding either our saintly or sinful aspects in isolation.

So, to consider the hypothetical cancer-curing xenophobic: I do not think that person's contribution to cultural xenophobia (whether by racism, homophobia, misogyny, or another manifestation) is excused by the his/her contribution to medicine, any more than the contribution to medicine is paled by the person's negative aspects. Both reflect vital components of the totality of how the individual impacted the broader society. The moral crime can be condemned even as the gift is celebrated.

Hitler loved children and promoted animal rights even as he ordered the slaughter of millions. While he advocated, and boldly practiced, the principle of nonviolence, Gandhi was overtly racist when it came to Africans. Leaders of at least one major Central American drug cartel today divert a share of the cartel's profits to assisting poor members of their society and various social improvement programs. Winston Churchill made brilliant contributions to Great Britain's resistance in the Second World War even as he expressed racist sentiments, and arguably played a deliberate part in the starvation of millions of India's citizens.

We are most often an impure blending of good and evil. But our good does not erase our evil. It is perfectly legitimate to condemn the evil - even if that evil is advocacy of a harmful worldview that does not directly manifest in physical attack - while acknowledging the good.

It's usually the most difficult to apply that standard to ourselves.