can someone be racist and a good person?

[bookbunny]

Or homophobic or sexist or prejudice in another way and still be a good person?


*potential Outlander spoilers?* (which is funny because I have never even read it lol!)

Anyway, I was reading the discussion on how Jamie (?) Beats or rapes his wife or something, but some readers consider it "ok" because of the time period, and they still love the character. That got me thinking about whether someone can be racist/sexist/homophobic/ or anything and still be a "good person". If so, how? Can you share any examples? I was hoping to hear your thoughts and maybe have an interesting discussion

[dorothyinAus]

I have not read Outlander, and have no real plans to do so, so feel free to ignore anything that does not apply to the characters in the book(s).

But to answer the question: In one of his books (I forget which one, and my copies are still in boxes so it's not easy to go search it out), Robert Fulghum comments that it is possible to hold conflicting beliefs simultaneously. I think this question is the embodiment of holding conflicting beliefs. Just because one is a homophobe, a xenophobe, a racist, or a bigot does not mean that one is not a good person. One belief in abstract is not necessarily a reliable indicator of a person's goodness. One quality does not a whole person make. It is the actions of the person, regardless of beliefs that make a good person.

My DH often says that some of the best "Christians" he knows are atheists. It is not necessary to conform to the societal norm to be a good person. It is, more often than not, that the good people fall outside the societal dictates.

[charlatti]

This is a really interesting question. I haven't read Outlander either. I guess I would think about how many people would say their grandparents, for example, are bigoted in one way or another, but they are still wonderful grandparents. I agree with PP -- someone's beliefs may or may not dictate how that person acts.

(I might have more coherent thoughts later after I finish my coffee!)

[PinkSquirrel]

I too have not read Outlander, but I think it depends on what they've done that would put their "goodness" in question. For example, no, I do not think a rapist can be a good person. A rapist has done something so morally deplorably that in my mind, it will forever taint my view of them and I would never be able to consider them anything less than the scum of the earth. Racists and homophobes enter a bit more of a gray area because while I still would give them a major side eye, I think it's possible to still be a good person.

I think for me it's more how you act out on things, so you can be a racist/homophobe/etc and may make a comment or joke that while totally inappropriate isn't worthy of negating other good things you do in your life. Now if you go out and physically harm someone because you have an issue with their race/sexuality then I think the good you do is definitely going to be negated. If you're like the Westboro Baptist "Church" and constantly harass people at funerals for being gay, then any good they may do in their lives outside of that doesn't matter to me.

I think it's definitely not a black and white issue, but I think everyone does not great things in their lives. What matters most is how bad that not great thing is and I can't necessarily define that in all situations, but I think it has a lot to do with how your negative actions affect the people they're directed at.

[charlatti]

May 21, 2012 9:03:49 GMT -5 PinkSquirrel said:

I too have not read Outlander, but I think it depends on what they've done that would put their "goodness" in question. For example, no, I do not think a rapist can be a good person. A rapist has done something so morally deplorably that in my mind, it will forever taint my view of them and I would never be able to consider them anything less than the scum of the earth.

That brings up another interesting (though NBR) question. Do you (collective you) believe a person can be redeemed or rehabilitated? Are there certain acts after which a person is completely unforgivable?

[ChillyMcFreeze]

I haven't read Outlander either, but my gut reaction is to say no. Racism and homophobia are hatred for people of another race or sexual orientation or a feeling that they are inferior. That's a moral deficiency to me. We all have moral deficiencies or lapses in judgment in some ways, but intense disdain for an entire group of people goes beyond stealing a ream of paper from work. You can do good works and still be a bad person on the whole. There is also the unwillingness to change. We talk about older generations still having racist feelings because that's what they've always known, but I don't think there is any excuse for that behavior now when things have changed so much and information, scientific and anecdotal, about others is so widely available. (That's not to say that we're a post-racial society, because I absolutely do not believe we are.)

[mollymoe]

What do you think about the idea of judging someone based on the time period? I haven't read this book either but it sounds like a lot of people think it is ok for Jamie to beat and rape his wife because he lived 100 years ago. Is he a main character? People actually like this guy?

For me, I have a hard time seperating them. If you beat your wife, you are wrong now just like you would have been wrong 100+ years ago. I guess this is the same issue people have with Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

[PinkSquirrel]

May 21, 2012 10:54:05 GMT -5 charlatti said:

That brings up another interesting (though NBR) question. Do you (collective you) believe a person can be redeemed or rehabilitated? Are there certain acts after which a person is completely unforgivable?

I think people can be rehabilitated in many instances and I may even be able to forgive what they've done (depending on what it is), but I will forever judge someone that has done majorly fucked up things.

[mollymoe]

May 21, 2012 12:44:33 GMT -5 PinkSquirrel said:

May 21, 2012 10:54:05 GMT -5 charlatti said:

That brings up another interesting (though NBR) question. Do you (collective you) believe a person can be redeemed or rehabilitated? Are there certain acts after which a person is completely unforgivable?

I think people can be rehabilitated in many instances and I may even be able to forgive what they've done (depending on what it is), but I will forever judge someone that has done majorly fucked up things.

Agreed. To make it book related, last year I read Lost Dogs about the Michael Vick dogs. Ugh.

[writingwithheld]

I think it depends how things are defined. There is a distinction between discrimination and prejudice. For example, my mother has internal prejudices against certain groups of people. However, she does not act on them to treat these people differently so it is not discrimination. Is prejudice (opinion) considered racism in this question or only discrimination (action)? Usually I consider both a from of racism/homophobia etc., but for the purposes of this discussion I think they must be kept separate.

Basically, I guess I would say that if a character had thoughts of raping another person that would not make them completely not good, but if they actually acted on it and showed no remorse I would not consider them to be a good person.

[sporklemotion]

Great topic, and a really complicated question. . .

I don't know that "good" and "bad" are really clear categories that I can really place people into-- there are people on the extremes (Hitler, Mother Teresa, etc.), but I feel like most of us fall somewhere in the middle. So I guess my answer is yes, that one can be good and hold these beliefs, though I agree with PP that it depends.

I think your background or the time period may make it more understandable, but that it doesn't let you off the hook entirely. I've definitely known people who had homophobic, racist, or sexist views, but I think if they're willing to listen to reason, I won't see them as "bad." If they're aware that they're being hurtful and continue to insist that they're right, I might nudge them into the bad category. That was one of my problems with Outlander-- I feel like the book justifies it due to the context and I had a hard time getting over it because of Jamie's response and attitude.

As to the question about whether people are redeemable, I personally believe that they can be and that one bad act, no matter how bad, doesn't define a person (I am aware how Pollyanna-ish this sounds). It reminds me of a line from Shakespeare Behind Bars (a great movie about prisoners who put on Shakespeare plays)-- "imagine if you were defined every day by the worst thing you did." I've often thought about that-- I don't think I'm a bad person, but someone looking at the worst thing I've ever done might disagree.

[aurora]

I'm in the people aren't really "good" or "bad" camp. Actions are certainly stronger than opinions, but I also don't think that people in general can completely avoid acting on their opinions, so I can't consider being racist/sexist/etc. a neutral state even if you think you're not discriminating.

That said, living with an open mind and doing your best to become a better person is an excellent route to take, IMO.