4 ms·
you mean, if you do $10 of good things as a smoke screen for $11 of bad, then you are bad, not that the good things aren't in fact good
by wjn0 8y ago
you mean, if you do $10 of good things as a smoke screen for $11 of bad, then you are bad, not that the good things aren't in fact good
- bmelton 8y agoRight -- I don't care what Bill Gates' motives for donating all the money to charity that he donates, because I believe that the money he's donating is doing actual good. Maybe he feels guilty for some of his actions as Microsoft CEO, maybe he doesn't. Maybe he's cheating on his wife, or doing some other nefarious deed -- but those charities still have that money, and they're still (probably) doing good work with it.
- perfmode 8y agothat’s not an example of a smoke screen, as i intended. there is an ordering requirement implied in my statement. it’s necessary for the good to precede the bad in a way that demonstrates the good was to prevent the detection or objection to the subsequent bad. using good deeds to atone for past transgressions is different in a way that is subtle.
- bmelton 8y agoI disagree. We're perfectly capable of judging an act on its own merits. Orson Scott Card is a good author. Orson Scott Card is a bigot, and I do not ever wish to give him any money, so I will not buy his books now that I know of his bigotry. His bigotry doesn't cancel out his talent as an author, and while I might find that I don't enjoy reading his books any more as a result of what I know of him, that doesn't change what my opinion was before I found out about his bigotry. A good act is a good act, even if it's surrounded by a dozen bad acts.
- perfmode 8y agohe didn’t use his talent as a smoke screen. so those good deeds aren’t poisoned by the bigotry. if you found out that he set out to make stellar art for the explicit purpose of softening people to his bigotry, then it would be a smoke screen.