Separating The Person From The Act

Do you do this?

For example. My kids fight. My 6yo DS says "I hate my brother!!!" My 3yo is a terrible stirrer. I reply "I know you must really hate what your little brother has done, but you still love him don't you?" I help him separate the act from the person.

I think we ALL are capable of good and bad acts. As I grow older I find that I am tending to avoid defining people by what they do TODAY. I know full well that some days I am a very industrious person... so I could define myself as a hard working "good" person. Ok, so not today :redface: Today I am a lazy "bad" person who won't fold her Laundry Mountain! So... I don't consider myself a Good or a Bad person. I am just a person capable of both good and bad acts. I could look over my life and weigh both ends of the scales and try to determine if I have done more good things than bad things... I dunno :dunno: what that would come up with, I'd hope it could prove that I was a Good Person... maybe not. But say it weighed badly in my favour... say I have actually spent more time being Bad/Lazy/Selfish etc. Do I deserve that label for the rest of my life? I suppose lots of people would say yes... unless I did something that they deemed completely heroic and turned up on the news after saving a baby from a burning house??? Maybe then I could call myself Good once and for all???? Hmmm.... well until I decide to pour Round-Up all over the neighbour-from-Hells favourite rose bush i guess.

Anyhow.... I think that from now I am not going to bother thinking of people as Bad or Good. Not even myself. "I'm a person who is capable of good and bad actions" and that's pretty much it. Same applies to everyone else.

I understand the concept...and when applied to things like 3 year old sibling squabbles, it makes sense.

But in terms of human adult interactions - I can't do it. People do silly things, foolish thing,s things without thinking...but they perform these acts as a representation of their beliefs and values, a reflection of who they are and what they believe in -and these things usually show the price for sell out of those values.
Does that make sense?
To take an extreme example. A rapist. Their acts cannot be separated from their 'self' - their acts are a direct reflection of their core values, beliefs and what it took to venture into the "bad act". The price of their humanity or their social respect, for want of a better phrase.

So whilst I think for children in the situation of the very over used "I hate..." phrase, then yes - you don't HATE your brother because he took your toy or ripped the head off your babrie, you are unhappy that he hurt you. The use of the word HATE to me is the issue - not one person expressing hurt and anger at being hurt by someone close and trusted.

hmmm...did that waffle make sense? lol

Hmmm I agree with both of you!

I'm working on separating the person from the act in the supermarket when I see people buying up big on nasty chemical cleaners that just trash the planet. I wanna rush up to them and tell them to save money AND the planet by using bi-carb, tea tree oil, and vinegar ... so far I have resisted temptation :lol:

But your point about there being a difference between rapists and 3yr olds is very very true. It's a whole lot for me to think about, thankyou :D (FEEL that personal development happening!!!!)

Interesting isn't it? But what if the same rapist risked his own life the following week by driving through a fire-storm to save a family? Is that man (I'm assuming we have a man in mind when we refer to rapists... controversial too I know) but is that man a good or a bad man?

Is it possible to be defined as a Good or Bad person for the rest of your life no matter what? or is it fluid? I'm still leaning toward fluidity and not labelling people. Getting back to the rapist: sadly many soldiers have committed atrocity including rape in times of war and incredible personal stress... BUT at the same time they have laid their lives down for their countries? I think it's a very grey issue. as much as it would be more convenient to label people Good or Bad I honestly don't think it's possible... until perhaps after death.

I am going to get jumped on for this one...


I detest war, I think they are unnecessary, evil and pointless waste and destruction of beauty and grace the universe has seen fit to hand to us. They are an abomination and anyone that partakes in them is no hero in my book.
I would rather die with honour than with the stain of innocent blood on my hands. A soldier is such because he has a particular set of values. I personally hold those values to be disgraceful and perpetuating hate, death, destruction and disunity.
Honourable men do not rape during war, they do not pillage, they do not kill innocents, nor do they accept that certain levels of innocent death is to be accepted in war. And any who do have no honour.

As for the rapist - I would question his motives for saving the family...? I would examine what the difference in cost to him was - why was it just as easy for him to cause pain and devastation and just as easy to put his life before another? I would consider tht the issue - and a negative. His lack of commitment to one path, his fickle moral compass cannot be "good" can it? I believe people can change, but in the moment he committed the bad act, he is bad. In the moment he commits the good, he is good. On a whole, his good act does not retract the damage he has already caused...


ETA: "Those who know they are right in themselves have no need to convince others by force that they are right"

Beyond the issue of war and the rightness/wrongness of that I am still considering the vast number of people in my life who have done terrible and wonderful things in their lives. I agree with this: "the moment he committed the bad act, he is bad. In the moment he commits the good, he is good". This is the essence of my argument. It also links in with the "Bad mother/Good mother" discussion. Neither exists beyond the moment.... and every moment has extenuating circumstances. A moral compass is very important, I totally agree with that. It's something that can be assessed.... but people do change.

Thinking on it more than usual, I think I must be of the view that you are exactly what you are in that moment.
Having said that, I think that is because I dont believe in "good" and "evil" people like that. I think you are the sum of your actions, nothing more, nothing less. Does that make sense?
So people can do good or bad things, but they themselves are not different from those acts....

I think what I mean with the war comments is that the notions of 'good' and 'bad' is subjective

hmmm...

I am going to ponder some more Bath lol

Getting back to assessing a persons moral compass: I'm starting to think that a person who has never done an "official" bad thing would be lesser in my eyes than one who might have done a bad thing and been repentant. If, say their moral compass seemed to indicate that they have a very uncaring attitude (for example). In my eyes the person who just goes through life getting what they can and never giving a thought to anyone besides themselves... the person who shrugs and turns away from suffering.... the person who can distance himself from any kind of responsibilty eg to the planet... all these things are pretty minor compared to say killing someone. But the oblivious self centered individual doesn't get off the hook just because he hasn't hit the head-lines. I would sooner call the killer a better person if they showed genuine remorse and had gained insight. The dead-soul "man on the street" in my eyes is more of a concern.

LOL now does THAT make any sense?