This is a problem i allways hated. If for an example I advocate for gender equality and in a rainy day I decide to go to a prostitute people will dismiss all my claims because we all know that if you are a hyprocite than all your statements must by false.
But the response I like the most "If he couldn't do it why should I?", because if for some reason(psychopathy for example) I can't stop killing people why shouldn't everyone kill people.

Achievements are so different from actions.

For example, imagine yourself leading an army to face the Nazis. Underestimate their achievements in war, and the genius inventions they take with them to battle, and you'll end up defeated and so dead.

You can hate them, despise them, or even judge them, but in war they were good. Take the achievemnt off; and you're a lousy tactician.

That's why Richard the Lion Heart gave Saladin a gift once, and Saladin brought him a horse in a battle that Richard lost his horse in.

Acknowledging achievements is so just; despising the wrongdoers is also so just.
"Despise". Do not "Discard".

You don't have the right to discard. and if you do that, I'll assure failure to you, and my severe disrespect.

(December 26, 2017 at 7:50 pm)notimportant1234 Wrote: This is a problem i allways hated. If for an example I advocate for gender equality and in a rainy day I decide to go to a prostitute people will dismiss all my claims because we all know that if you are a hyprocite than all your statements must by false.
But the response I like the most "If he couldn't do it why should I?", because if for some reason(psychopathy for example) I can't stop killing people why shouldn't everyone kill people.

I wouldnt see paying money for sex as being hypocritical for a person who advocates gender equality.

(December 28, 2017 at 2:47 am)paulpablo Wrote:

(December 26, 2017 at 7:50 pm)notimportant1234 Wrote: This is a problem i allways hated. If for an example I advocate for gender equality and in a rainy day I decide to go to a prostitute people will dismiss all my claims because we all know that if you are a hyprocite than all your statements must by false.
But the response I like the most "If he couldn't do it why should I?", because if for some reason(psychopathy for example) I can't stop killing people why shouldn't everyone kill people.

I wouldnt see paying money for sex as being hypocritical for a person who advocates gender equality.

Me neither , it was a generalisation. The point is that people most of the time call on hypocrisy and imorality to dismiss statements.

I think that we have to make a distinction between achievements and Ideas. Achievements can be discarded easily, for example a victory of a athlete who cheated. But ideas are independent of the person who issued them and should continue without the person or indeed any person affiliated with that idea. You mentioned Sam Harris for example, his ideas would live on regardless of what you find if you look at his life more closely.

(January 2, 2018 at 5:12 pm)ShirkahnW Wrote: I think that we have to make a distinction between achievements and Ideas. Achievements can be discarded easily, for example a victory of a athlete who cheated. But ideas are independent of the person who issued them and should continue without the person or indeed any person affiliated with that idea. You mentioned Sam Harris for example, his ideas would live on regardless of what you find if you look at his life more closely.

I think if he were found to be morally flawed, it would not only completely ruin his personal ability to persuade Christians to think more logically-- it would make him a figurehead for "See?  Told you-- atheists are morally bankrupt!"

The whole issue is tricky. Many great scientists, writers, artists, etc have been scoundrels or worse.

Does the fact that Tolstoy was abusive to his wife make his writing less important or meaningful? Or the fact that Socrates had sex with minors make his philosophy less interesting? Or, to take a modern example, that Kevin Spacey sexually attacked people make him less of an actor?

If we eliminate all people who did atrocious things and their influences, we would lose much of great interest and value.

On the other hand, while society can profit from the works of the worst of us, I do think we should make sure the worst of us do not profit from society.

So, I would say it is fine to watch reruns of the Cosby Show or House of Cards, but only if the scoundrel involved no longer gets money from the endeavor. Let society enjoy the art, but do NOT let the harasser profit from it. So, for the Cosby Show and House of Cards, there may still be a real issue. But for Tolstoy, there is no longer one. Be aware that art does NOT follow life in this regard and that the author of a wonderful book or the actor that makes an incredible performance may well be someone that should not be tolerated by society any longer.

Really, the more I look into the issue of famous people who ended up with a lot of skeletons in their closet while (or as a direct result of) achieving greatness, one conclusion becomes clear: The key difference between good men and evil men is this - Evil men try to destroy the world and fail. Good men try to destroy the world and succeed. And we celebrate the world they created from the ashes.

There's a couple of Gary Glitter songs I like.
Think I'll just sing them to myself in secret.

Everyone in general should stop taking credit for achievements. Ego is overrated.

We should discard everyone's achievements, likable and unlikable alike, including our own.

We should merely appreciate being a collection of atoms and vibrations.

Of course, there's no problem with pride... besides the fact that it's irrational at best and harmful at worst. Same with shame.