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.

I suppose my question is, by what criteria is it acceptable to condemn the person?

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.

Nine things you didn't know about coffee cups! (Number Seven will surprise you!)

Oh, what I'm saying is that your intro sounds like the heading to every huffpost article ever, and correct me if I'm way off, but this feels like continuation-bleating along with two or three other current-threads here at TotJO, which as a "trend" is part of the TotJOs inane cycle of grinding a conversation into pieces over a week (maybe two) and then they all sink to the bottom of the internet never to be seen again, and no one is really any better off for it.

My more or less needless vitriolic commentary aside, this is (I think?) an issue I agree with you on, or possibly, you agree with me, depending on how you look at "ownership" of ideas.


ANYWAY, curing cancer is a bit airy-fairy as a concept of the "best thing a person could do", and "having -ist ideas" is also a bit lame as "the worst thing a person can have"

Maybe we can consider lesser-goods, and more clear "bads", possibly even refer to life for an example - possibly even some of the data points in your trend..(but we'll make it hypothetical, so we don't get mired in the fog of facts and beliefs that may exist in the real world)

Let's say an entertainer, lets call him Spevin Kasey, has entertained millions for years, and been granted all sorts of awards (entertainment specific awards, with criteria like "Is entertaining", "contributes to entertainment" and suchlike)
And then, after a period of time, it is discovered or determined, one way or another, that he sexually assaulted an underage person.

Now, in the fictional case of Spevin Kasey, let's say the facts as given above are true and correct.

It would seem, under whatever jurisdiction, that Spevin would have to face penalties for the crime that did occur - but does that also mean he should be stripped of awards and accolades for other achievements, none of which included criteria of "Don't touch kids" ?


(I am aware that organisations may put caveats in their titles, like "in good standing" or "of good repute" and stuff, so that it is embedded in the award that the receiver is also a pillar of the community in other ways, but again, for the purposes of clarifying your position, lets say those are not criteria)





Just leaving a space, because I walked away for a bit, and this is a further watered down idea, more in the realms of our day-to-day decision making of how we deal with people in our spheres - how do you feel about competence vs being personable?


Lets say, hypothetically, the general manager of X Brand is...incredibly competent. They keep the place running, they ensure good business relationships with all suppliers, they make sure there is good insurance/healthcare for the staff, that rosters and hours are fair and lawful, that rest periods are adhered to by line managers, that everyone receives their allowance of sick days or compassionate leave days, they build the business so that everyone has secure employment and opportunity for advancement, everything you could want in a general manager - they are good at.

but they are also have no people skills. They don't talk to anyone who works under them, they never visit the staff, they're standoffish, possibly even rude, maybe you'd even be offended by them - perhaps they refer to the staff as "plebs" or "worker ants" who knows, for whatever reason, they are incredibly unlikable, to whatever extent it is allowable to be unlikable without it being a crime, maybe they smell bad, whatever - but they are efficient and effective.

Do you say "he's a bad person" ? or do you say "the manager is a bit eccentric, but i wouldn't have anyone else in the job" ?




Water it down more - Do you really care what the politics of your local barista is, as long as they make good coffee?


Now the least good vs a big bad - Would you drink coffee made by a child molester? or is the nature of their crime such that nothing else they ever do as a human is acceptable at any level?