IIIIITHE1IIIII on 25 June 2012
| Jay520 said: A person's character is dictated by their actions. Regardless of whether they controlled their actions, actions are still the basis for judging people. If a person does funny things, he's a funny person. If a person doess crazy things, he's a crazy person. And if a person does bad things he's a bad person. Lets assume that we are only the product of a combination of genetic makeup & environmental factors. If someone has a bad combination of genetic makeup & environment factors, then they will be a bad person. Sure, they didn't control their actions but That doesn't mean I can't still hate them. I hate the outcome of the person's genetic makeup & experiences. And that outcome is the person. Therefore, I hate the person. Since he is the result of terrible experiences and genetics. If we have no free will and are the result of uncontrollable factors. Then we as people are simply the focus of our environment. And if someone hates that particular focus, then they should hate the person too. |
The bolded makes no sense to me. I wouldn't hate that person in that case, I would call him unfortunate (since he didn't choose his experiences or genetics).
I don't hate a mass murderer, I feel sorry for him because he happened to be exposed to certain experiences and be born with certain genetics. I hate his actions which made innocent people die though.
Edit: I noticed you added this: "A person is his actions and if we hate all the actions, then we hate the person. It doesn't matter if they're responsible for their actions."
Which is wrong. A person is a body with senses; which are nouns. His actions are verbs, and are disconnected from the person.
