“Nice people made the best Nazis. My mom grew up next to them. They got along, refused to make waves, looked the other way when things got ugly and focused on happier things than “politics.” They were lovely people who turned their heads as their neighbors were dragged away. You know who weren’t nice people? Resisters.”
– Naomi Shulman
@aral It may not be that easy to define, nice, good or bad people. Is it relative to intention, to impact on society ? If nice people were the one not acting, who were the one dragging away ? Is their some study on who were the peopke resisting before they do ? But I agree that people with a bad impact on society in one context could have a good impact in another context. No good or bad, just people lucky to be more adapted to the society they live in.
@bellitre @aral The underlying point here is that "the ones dragging away" (who were only a small group, relatively speaking) couldn't possibly have achieved what they did if it weren't for all the "nice" people looking away and cooperating and working with them - they were the ones giving the nazis power.
The rest of your post sounds like some bullshit philosophizing to justify collaboration, frankly.
@joepie91 @aral Sorry I'm not able to retrieve the post I respond too (it was more than one year ago). I think we all agree that people not doing to crime and bad things they are aware of are also responsable. That was not what it was about, sorry if my bad English and the absence of context mislead you. The question was in deed more philosophical on how to classify a "good" or a "bad" person. I am certainly a bad because I don't do anything again war crime in gaza, but I hope I may some other
@joepie91 @aral actions that make it more difficult to classify me as good or bad. I guess in some context I do good things, in some other bad thing. When I'm inconfortable in the society I live in, I'm more prone to do things against this society. Could be good if the society is seen as bad, could be bad if the society is seen as good.
(I did not notice the age of the post, sorry.)
I agree that 'good' and 'bad' are not a property of people themselves, and that it's about the choices they make.
The bit I had a problem with in your comment, was mainly the "people lucky to be more adapted" part, because it makes it sound like there's no responsibility to change, you just have to be lucky to 'fit in' or not. But you *do* have a responsibility towards others to do the best you can, whether or not that's the "normal" thing in a society.
Otherwise, I think we agree.
@joepie91 @aral In deed that something I question. I guess it's the philosophical "free choice" debate.
I agree that depending of the context (the laws or what is considered good or bad by other people) the behaviour of one person can change. So if collectively we evolve to see something as bad, it will make people have "better" behaviour. So as a society we have an interest to juge other people and their action to make them have the best behaviour for the society.
@joepie91 @aral But philosophically, I see people as the simple result of their "genes" and the environnement they grow up in.
I mean when you take your first decision, it was the result of your "state of mind" at that time and of your environnement. Due to that decision, your "state of mind" had change and the following decisions were the result of the previous ones, but I don't see how "you" could have change your state of mind at anytime.
@joepie91 @aral So for me, yes, in the absolute nobody is responsible for who he is, and even if it is important that the society punish you if you don't follow the rules, as knowing that will change the behaviour of the majority.
So for me the ones for who it is easy to follow the rules are the luckiest one. The ones who are able to follow the rules but with an effort are a bit less lucky. And the ones who are not able to follow the rules, who feel rejected by the other
@bellitre @aral People are definitely affected by the environment they grow up in (and *maybe* genetically, though that's much more questionable), but that's never an excuse not to learn and change.
At most, it makes it harder for specific people to learn and change specific things, and that is something to take into account and make room for; but it doesn't remove the responsibility for them to do the best they can, and if someone doesn't do the work of learning and changing at all, that's a _choice_.
So, adapting slower? Sure, understandable. Not adapting at all? Not an option.
Some very important context here is that the "they just are that way and it's hard to change" argument is only ever used to defend privileged people from any hardship. Marginalized people usually don't get that choice; they are *expected* to adapt, or die. That is why I do not accept an "I just can't do that".
@joepie91 @aral But when there is a rule with a very hard sanction and you are almost certain you will get caught if you don't respect it, there will still be people who still violate it because it still appears as the better choice for them, because they don't see what they can do otherwise or don't think they are capable of it.
And the young dealer of poor neighbourhood are a good example of that.
@joepie91 @aral For the genetic impact, I don't see how we can question it. If you have some genetic disease, if you are tall or small, strong or weak, seen as beautiful or uggly, man or woman, white or black, of course it will have an impact on your life. It's not because some people try to use genetic determinism as an excuse that we should say it doesn't exist. Of course both environment and genetics use a role to determine what we become.
@joepie91 @aral What I say is that as a society, as we are not able to know who can change and who can't, we are forced to punish all of them the same way.
And the more we are able to detect and condemn people who do things that are bad for society, the best it is for the society.
So I'm completely in favour of punishing with "privileged people" that do bad thing for the society.