can one's beliefs be held apart for from one's achievements?

[madwarper]

I hope I don't have to point this out, but in the Washington quote, the 'dumb' means 'mute'. It's not a comment on their intellect.

OT: I can admire Henry Ford, but still find some aspects about him distasteful.
He modernized assembly line, but was fought ferociously against changes made to the Model T.
He paid his employees a wage so they could afford to purchase the cars they made, but only after forcing them to assimilate to the American way of life.
He made the automobile a staple of the American way of life, but hired goons to beat away union organizers.
He was an anti-war advocate, but was also a huge anti-Semite.

 

[sanquin]

It's called a strawman fallacy. And people only use such arguments (Well you agree with that guy and he was a racist so you're a racist/his standpoint is invalid!) when they don't have any -proper- arguments against your arguments but still want to win. That's how I see it at least.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

I can enjoy the work of someone who is a horrible person or had beliefs I disagree with.

I'm a fan or Lovecraft's work, but I can ignore his more racist views as a part of the times or as the opinions of the characters, or interpret them in different ways.

He might have been thinking of interracial human couples when he wrote stories about the horror of humans breeding with subhuman creatures and horrors, but it's easy for me not to think of ape-men and aliens as stand-ins for black people.

But if Lovecraft still lived, I wouldn't support his work, because I wouldn't want to give my money to him.

Lovecraft is a weird example. He was very anti-semitic, but he married a Jewish Woman. I think that he might just have been legitimately insane. Or touched by the slimy thought tendrils of Yog-Sothoth.

 

[Lilani]

What I find so weird about Card is how the morality he portrays as correct in his books does not match up with the morality he preaches in his articles and in interviews.

Erm, well he did have a story or two in the 80s that specifically called being gay a path to self-destruction. But yeah, for the most part, his best known works don't include that crazy stuff.

But I still understand people who don't want to support Card or give money to him because he is on the board of directors of the National Organization of Marriage, which was formed specifically to pass Prop 8 in California. The man is not above using himself (and most likely his money) to actively campaign against gay rights. So in that respect, I completely understand someone who doesn't want to give that man a dime.

 

[Silvanus]

As with most issues, this one can be solved with a little application of WWSD ("What Would Stannis Do?")


And Stannis has this to say; "A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward".

 

[Vegosiux]

Let me put it this way:

A profound quote is only made profound by history and generations who came after. Usually, long after, long enough that the quote can be idealized and idolized.

Therefore I can't seriously say saying something is "an achievement" in and of itself. I've said many things that if the stars align will be written in history forever; and if the stars do not align, they'll be lost forever. It's the alignment of the stars that makes the difference.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

If he was drunk, high, out of his mind with grief, something that vastly separated himself from his normal beliefs and functions that made him do such an act

I've been pretty drunk, high, and out of my mind with grief at the same time after a chick I'd been dating dumped me two days after she let me spend the rest of my savings to buy her something. The way I see it, she knew she was gonna end it because nothing changed in those two days. She essentially robbed me. I still didn't hit her.

Those things aren't excuses is what I'm getting at.

Never been drunk or high. It was the only thing I could think of that would make someone vastly different than how they normally act. I have seen people totally flip the script while in grief, but like 'I just lost a love one' grief.

 

[TrulyBritish]

I'm guessing this thread was somewhat brought about by the debate about Orson Scott Card in the other thread, isn't it?
If it is, you may have missed the point of what people were getting at. Yes, people's work and their beliefs are different, it is entirely possible to like one and dislike the other.
In the case of OSC this means yes, his books can be good (Having never read them i wouldn't know) even though people don't like his anti-gay marriage stance.
But, that's not really what people were saying. They weren't saying "I don't like this man so his books are rubbish", they were saying "I don't like this man so i won't give him my money." They didn't like the fact it was possible he was giving the money he got from his profits into funding campaigns about beliefs they don't agree with it.
Which, by my book, is perfectly fair.
Don't get me started on the fact he's conveniently asking for tolerance when he's got a film coming out...

 

[Woodsey]

Washington was also racist at a time when almost everyone around him was racist. Moreover, sharing his opinion on free speech is not the same as supporting someone's creative work, because you're normally paying to enjoy their creative work - at which point you're also bolstering their profile and potentially giving them money to fund particular causes.

So, bit of a shit comparison.

(I'm going to pretend this isn't obviously about the Orson Scott Card thing.)

 

[Hero of Lime]

Yes, I believe that just cause a person thinks one way, doesn't mean their achievements should be completely void. The person in question would have to be serial killer/rapist or Hitler status for me to outright disregard their works or achievements. I say it's all about balance, if an artist or celebrity of any kind doesn't share your world view, flat out denying their works and positives feels wrong to me even if I'm really against what they stand for.

I don't know.. if a serial killer/rapist invented a way for humanity to travel and colonize the stars, I would be pretty inclined to honor his/her achievement. Because that would just change humanity so totally, granted I wouldn't just pardon his/her crimes, but still, space travel.

That would be a tough call, I would credit a killer/rapist for doing something like easy space travel, or curing cancer, something to help humanity on a huge scale. However, if their achievements involve something as fairly unimportant, then I wouldn't be able to just overlook their crimes.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Spoiler: I feel like this is relevant

Mostly I would say yes you can separate someone's beliefs from their achievements.

George Washington wasn't a smart leader because he was racist.
Orson Scott Card isn't a great author because he's a homophobic twat.


I think the first post hit it on the nose, you can agree with someone about one thing, and disagree with them on every other point.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Yes it can, in context. For me, its not so much beliefs but race. Why cant a black guy be a great actor. Why just a great black actor. Now i know we are labelled who we are, male, female, gay, straight and black etc But that stuff shouldnt matter, you should be a great actor and thats comparable to everyone. Not just "great black actor" because that sounds like limiting you to colour and race.

OT Washington had racist views because that was the norm. Like about 40 years ago gay people were considered abnormal. Context is everything. But for me, i dont care if some one is anti gay or racist. I just ask that they keep it to them selves.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Well yes. If someone was an awful person, but came up with a brilliant invention, their genius isn't diminished. People try to sum up people with big generalizations like 'good' and 'bad', but in reality people are more complex than that.

 

[Sandernista]

What I find so weird about Card is how the morality he portrays as correct in his books does not match up with the morality he preaches in his articles and in interviews.

Erm, well he did have a story or two in the 80s that specifically called being gay a path to self-destruction. But yeah, for the most part, his best known works don't include that crazy stuff.

I should have made it clear I've only ever read the Ender's Game series, and maybe one or two short stories.

But I still understand people who don't want to support Card or give money to him because he is on the board of directors of the National Organization of Marriage, which was formed specifically to pass Prop 8 in California. The man is not above using himself (and most likely his money) to actively campaign against gay rights. So in that respect, I completely understand someone who doesn't want to give that man a dime.

I completely agree with them too; once I found out about Card's politics I refused to buy anything with his name on it, even though Ender's Game was my favorite book to gift.

 

[Total LOLige]

I think we can separate the two so long as those out of order views aren't apparent in their work.

Also, I don't see how anyone can dismiss a persons racist views as "it was the social norm" by that logic we should also forget that slavery happened, "everyone owned a slave in those days, it was no biggie". I know that may be putting words in mouths a bit but you must see where I'm coming from. Don't bother quoting me telling me I'm wrong, and try to cause a beef because I'm not going to reply *puts fingers in ears*

"Love the work not the man" - Total LOLige.

 

[Dinwatr]

There was a doctor in Nazi Germany that used concentration camps as fodder for some really twisted experiments. Dr. Mengala, or something like that. The man is rightly condemned by every rational person; he was an evil monster, who sadistically tortured people for no reason.

That said, he did make some medical discoveries. Those discoveries are no less true because of how they were made. It is entirely possible to utilize those discoveries without supporting what that doctor did.

Edison is another example. He was a great inventor--but he was also a vile, petty, petulant individual who would stop at nothing, even outright fraud, to destroy comeptition. Doesn't make his inventions any less spectacular.

As for OSC, "Ender's Game" was good. Never got the appeal of the later books--I couldn't even finish the last two in that series. I'm all for preachy books (I love Atlas Shrugged and Dune), but the plot was simply incomprehensible in those books.

 

[Greni]

That said, he did make some medical discoveries. Those discoveries are no less true because of how they were made. It is entirely possible to utilize those discoveries without supporting what that doctor did.

Correction. Mengele was a shit scientist and horrible at conducting scientific experiments. His research was unusable and his deductions entirely wrong, mainly because of his own biased beliefs.

That said, the Japs did some research that's entirely unethical but entirely valid, mainly vivisection without an anesthetic.

 

[rob_simple]

So you're comparing the beliefs of a man who was racist at a time when the majority of the white world was, to a man who is homophobic in an age when pretty much all of civilised society has decided that being gay is both normal and acceptable? You don't see how the two are in no way comparable?

The thing I've always loved about Orson Scott Card crying 'victim' when people call him out on his bigoted horseshit, is that he tries to say people should treat him with the tolerance that they demand of him (ignoring the fact he is in no way tolerant of gay people). The difference between me thinking he is a grade-A **** and him thinking gay people are evil is this: gay people are just gay, contrary to popular belief they're not doing it as an attack on society, they're just dudes who like dudes.

OSC is choosing to permeate a false idea about gay people that can absolutely have negative repurcussions (when one of his fans takes it upon themselves to cave a gay person's head in support of their idol) whereas gay people just want to be gay. As far as I know, none of OSC's detractors are trying to make him suck dicks, they just want him to stop saying that men who do are an abomination. See the difference?

It's like, when I have a son I plan to raise him with the outlook that men can love women and men, and all the vice versas. The difference between that and raising my son to hate gay people (or raising a child with any other bigoted views (see: the rampant Sectarianism in Scotland)) is that I'm not implanting some homosexual agenda in my son from an early age; I'm merely explaining to him that there are all sorts of different people in the world.

If my son turns out to be gay it won't be because I told him what gay people are, but if he grows up to be a prejudiced arsehole it will absolutely be because of the environment he was raised in. People are born gay, but they aren't born bigots.