The concept of atonement

[Foxaèr]

If someone does something really bad, illegal according to the law bad, is there anything that individual can do to atone for his crime? Is there anything the individual can say or do to alter your perception of him being a bad person? Let us delve slightly further with a related question: does one mistake have to stick with the individual in your mind where you will always consider him a bad person?

(Upon reflection, this is probably better suited for a philosophy thread. A mod can move it if s/he deems it necessary.)

[AFTT47]

This seems like a no-brainer to me. Of course a person may "atone" for his or her crime. It would be illogical to declare that once a person has done evil, it is not possible that they might reverse their ideological position and regret their earlier action. You might want to hold them accountable for their earlier crime, demand the payment of some kind of restitution. But it makes no sense to cut-off any avenue of them ever making things right.

This is the "justice" vs. "revenge" thing.

Justice has some utility but revenge has none at all.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This seems like a no-brainer to me. Of course a person may "atone" for his or her crime. It would be illogical to declare that once a person has done evil, it is not possible that they might reverse their ideological position and regret their earlier action. You might want to hold them accountable for their earlier crime, demand the payment of some kind of restitution. But it makes no sense to cut-off any avenue of them ever making things right.

This is the "justice" vs. "revenge" thing.

Justice has some utility but revenge has none at all.

I disagree about revenge having no utility. I don’t know if you’ve ever carried out an act of revenge, but it feels really good.

Boru

[Angrboda]

They say forgive but never forget. I think therein lies an important dichotomy. Certain acts of contrition can make a bad act a lesser part of who one is, but they can never completely eliminate it.

[Anomalocaris]

This seems like a no-brainer to me. Of course a person may "atone" for his or her crime. It would be illogical to declare that once a person has done evil, it is not possible that they might reverse their ideological position and regret their earlier action. You might want to hold them accountable for their earlier crime, demand the payment of some kind of restitution. But it makes no sense to cut-off any avenue of them ever making things right.

This is the "justice" vs. "revenge" thing.

Justice has some utility but revenge has none at all.

I also disagree that revenge has no utility.   Creating the perception that crime results in high probability of revenge deters crime.

[Anomalocaris]

If someone does something really bad, illegal according to the law bad, is there anything that individual can do to atone for his crime? Is there anything the individual can say or do to alter your perception of him being a bad person? Let us delve slightly further with a related question: does one mistake have to stick with the individual in your mind where you will always consider him a bad person?

(Upon reflection, this is probably better suited for a philosophy thread. A mod can move it if s/he deems it necessary.)

Yea, he could repair the damage done by the bad thing?

No, one mistake does not always stick with the individual.   There are people who have done pretty bad things but whom I would rate much higher than most who had not.

My conceptual definition of a bad person is not whether the person had done bad things, but whether the person had strong propensity to do bad things.

A person with low propensity to do bad things can still experience a set of conditions which drove him to do the bad thing.   A person with high propensity to do bad things may never yet had the opportunity to do bad things.   I would rate the former much higher than the latter.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This seems like a no-brainer to me. Of course a person may "atone" for his or her crime. It would be illogical to declare that once a person has done evil, it is not possible that they might reverse their ideological position and regret their earlier action. You might want to hold them accountable for their earlier crime, demand the payment of some kind of restitution. But it makes no sense to cut-off any avenue of them ever making things right.

This is the "justice" vs. "revenge" thing.

Justice has some utility but revenge has none at all.

I also disagree that revenge has no utility.   Creating the perception that crime results in high probability of revenge deters crime.

Societal benefits aside, the thought that I may eventually get to skin certain people alive with a rusty file helps me sleep.

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

The best apology is one's behavior going forward. Acknowledging wrongdoing and apologizing is not enough if the offender repeats the same behavior that forced the "atonement" in the first place.

Put shortly, show me, don't tell me.

[LinuxGal]

This seems like a no-brainer to me. Of course a person may "atone" for his or her crime. It would be illogical to declare that once a person has done evil, it is not possible that they might reverse their ideological position and regret their earlier action. You might want to hold them accountable for their earlier crime, demand the payment of some kind of restitution. But it makes no sense to cut-off any avenue of them ever making things right.

This is the "justice" vs. "revenge" thing.

Justice has some utility but revenge has none at all.

I disagree about revenge having no utility. I don’t know if you’ve ever carried out an act of revenge, but it feels really good.

Boru

The most important feature of the Christian hell concept is the platform where Christians get to stand over the suffering damned and say, "SEE, WE TOLD YOU SO!"

Summa Theologica - Thomas Aquinas

Question 94. The relations of the saints towards the damned

Article 1. Whether the blessed in heaven will see the sufferings of the damned?

Objection 1. It would seem that the blessed in heaven will not see the sufferings of the damned. For the damned are more cut off from the blessed than wayfarers. But the blessed do not see the deeds of wayfarers: wherefore a gloss on Isaiah 63:16, "Abraham hath not known us," says: "The dead, even the saints, know not what the living, even their own children, are doing" [St. Augustine, De cura pro mortuis xiii, xv]. Much less therefore do they see the sufferings of the damned.

Objection 2. Further, perfection of vision depends on the perfection of the visible object: wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 4) that "the most perfect operation of the sense of sight is when the sense is most disposed with reference to the most beautiful of the objects which fall under the sight." Therefore, on the other hand, any deformity in the visible object redounds to the imperfection of the sight. But there will be no imperfection in the blessed. Therefore they will not see the sufferings of the damned wherein there is extreme deformity.

On the contrary, It is written (Isaiah 66:24): "They shall go out and see the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against Me"; and a gloss says: "The elect will go out by understanding or seeing manifestly, so that they may be urged the more to praise God."