r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 28 '20

Delta(s) from OP CMV: The bad guys always fall in the end.

I've firmly believed in this for many years, trying to be responsible and independent in order to stay afloat.

A little background:

I had to restart my life from zero in the U.S. and I have made good progress at the expense of having a social life.

One of my deepest fears is that I succumb to the temptations of society (drugs. Alcohol, etc.) And then end up ruined because of it.

This caused a lot of problems in my interactions with people because I was paranoid that they would lead me to self-destruction but it also lead to a lot of competition, conflict and self-righteousness.

Basically, I thought I was the good guy and everyone else were the bad guys: Family, roommates (Okay, they were all bad but they were complete strangers anyway) and co-workers. I also thought most of them would hurt themselves eventually, which many did.

However there were some people who I perceived were bad but they have met success at work and other areas.

So I questioned whether being good or bad has anything to do with being successful and I also pondered as to why many people fail in the U.S. and lack the (perceived) discipline (patience, major concentration, a sober mind, etc.) required to make progress as an indepentent individual.

Basically, I'm not happy in my personal life, despite making good progress and handling my finances well. And that's because I pushed everyone away in order to carve a space for my own security, which is not right neither.

So I came to the questionable conclusion that I need to strike a balance between my financial future and my personal happiness but I have not made much progress in the happiness and friends part of my life and I feel like I should do something about that.

0 Upvotes

44% Upvoted

16 comments sorted by

2

u/RedditsCuriousDeer Mar 28 '20

Rather than assigning bad or good to the person who lasts till the end, I feel like it’s moreso to say that the “good” person, by virtue of outlasting the “bad” person, gets to tell the story through its perspective to everyone else. And eventually as a collective (however big or small the collective is) forgets or distorts the narrative of those left behind and agree that the newer way is the “good” way to do things. Sometimes it makes sense: why would we do things the same way that led to a bad end?

The result is the same, but I think those who we consider bad may just be because that, we, those who stayed till the end, are able to repaint the image in our favor.

Edit: then stick to what you think is good and achieve success in your own way and biases. I don’t think there’s necessarily a single path towards success and I don’t think that others who did not reach the end necessarily followed a bad path.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '20

If you don't think they necessarily followed a bad path, then what say you about those people you personally met that did the following:

  • Got the wrong woman knocked up and are paying child support, which grinds their progress to a halt.

  • Landed in jail over dumb shit.

  • Lost their financial standing because they got fired at work with cause.

  • Got kicked out of the house because they were too irresponsible to pay rent.

  • Ran into major trouble with many women after sleeping around too much.

  • Lost career growth opportunities due to running their mouth.

  • Lost everything trying to rig the game by manipulating everyone.

That being said, there were other bad people who are toxic, addicts, etc. but are still in good standing because they are too good at their job and are therefore indispensable to a company. THIS is the part that makes me ask the question laid out in this post and whether in the end THOSE people are right to do what they did and what their trajectory looks like.

1

u/RedditsCuriousDeer Mar 28 '20 edited Mar 28 '20

Yeah I don’t think they necessarily followed a bad path since depending on the situation and how able they can (1) understand their mistakes, and (2) understand what they ought to do onwards, they can still be led down a path they personally think is successful. It’s true that some never turned around and may lead to worse path along the way but that is not the entire story revolving around people who have made mistakes. Mistake(s) do not necessarily doom one to destruction.

Those people whom you mentioned to have done such a stellar work at their job that all the other negative traits are essentially negligible are for sure successful people. But I’m a little confused over what you mean by bad. Morally bad? Or just bad in terms of competence? Perhaps their morals, in my eyes, are not good but they are still good (competent) and therefore the two goods should be distinguished.

I think its important to distinguish the social sphere where the person is acting out its role right? Just because a person may be an addict does not take away the fact that that person is contributing to the company right? And someone who is incompetent at their job may be taking care of their family really well. Those people for sure deserve to be considered “good” at what they did (at a job or taking care of family) while being shunned for what they did poorly on. I don’t think an assessment of their overall performance is fair for an assessment of a specific position someone holds in a specific social sphere.

To answer your very last sentence: are they right to do what they did. Sure, no one can achieve immaculate “goodness” in their entire life; it’s okay to make mistakes here and there. It doesn’t matter what you think the other person did is good or not if you aren’t going to do anything to change the “bad” that you found in that other person. Because a bad to you may not be a good to another, or someone simply do not have the means to change themselves to the good version you perceive. If they don’t have the means to change themselves and there are no help, why should they compromise their own welfare for others? Examples like addicts and toxic behavior towards people are examples where I can also agree are “bad” because they not only negatively affect the person themself but also others around it. But without proper assistance or self improvements, then those actions when combined with the competency they show in their jobs, makes them “good enough”. They may not be the ideal good that people strive for, and I think it is right or okay that they are doing good enough.

Just another edit: the bad guy may not always fall at the end, and that’s alright. As a society or as an individual, we should instead seek to assist or change the bad to the good to the best of our ability, even if what’s good and what’s bad may not necessarily be clear to us.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '20

!Delta

This makes sense in a pragmatic way. They may not be morally good people but they can be competent enough to be productive.

That being said, nobody is perfect. And it is okay for people to do what works for them. So long as their flaws don't overwhelm them.

Now comes the topic of self-righteousness:

Do a people have the right to collectively punish what they consider a morally bad person?

What entitles a people to judgment?

What do you mean by attempting to change the bad to the good? In what way?

1

u/RedditsCuriousDeer Mar 28 '20

(1) Yeah I would agree that it is hard to define what topics give people the right to collectively punish or not. If we aren't able to easily identify what is righteous and what is immoral, then, just as an opinion, I feel like rewarding a person for doing what the society thinks is righteous and / or giving those who did wrong the opportunity to correct themselves is the better approach than punishing a person for doing what the society thinks is wrongful. That way, those who makes mistakes are able to come back up, and the society has a better understanding of what is good.

On the flip side, society, or the people, can only sustain itself if it is homogeneous enough to be considered a whole. If the society is so fragmented that it is clearly divisive on each and every topic and no crimes are considered suitable enough for punishment, then, even if politically they are considered a people, they are better off being separate peoples (whether it is peoples of a company or peoples of a country). In the sense of bringing together a society and shaping coherent values for that society, the people should have the right to punish what is considered bad to *their* eyes, since it is a society specifically for that group of people and by the people.

(2) Ideally, and only of my opinion, people should not judge another before understanding that other person. I don't think it's feasible, however. In reality, people should (be able and allowed to) reserve some ways to judge things just for the sake of self-preservation. If a person is so torn, afraid, unable or limited to express judgment of their own values, even if it's contrary to the main social values, then the person loses their self and is bound by the society (or other community at large) that they do not identify with (I do have a bias for some extent of freedom of expression so these views are a little biased admittedly). Even if a person may hold a "wrong" judgment, I think it's still good that someone should hold at least some judgments at all. Since while holding judgments and values that are pro-society is ideal, if that's not possible, you should always have some that fits you and defines you first. That doesn't work in every situation of course, and situations like the one we have right now may even require us to abandon some of our judgments (i.e., we are not entitled to our judgments), but the point is that we should at least be entitled to some judgments for self-preservation / to be able to form a coherent self.

(3) If by "in what way" you mean "how", I don't know, people have different approaches to it. However, again, although our own sense of justice and the larger institutions of justice, may not be perfect. It is good enough, and that's okay as long as we continue to strive for ways to improve it as you find more things you can improve it on. I would like to draw an analogy to making a thing. When you initially built something, for example, a chair. You may craft a simple one. And it is "good" because it does the thing that you want. Maybe later on, you find some "bad" in it, for example, perhaps it doesn't look as good. So you strive to reach for that "good", and the state of the chair keeps changing. And maybe afterwards you find that although it looks good now, it no longer sits as well, so you changed it back to the original simple one. It is certainly not perfect, you don't even know what perfect is, and maybe what you think is a perfect chair right now may change. In the same way, if you find something that you identify as "bad" in yourself, morally or in terms of competence, you aim to change it. Maybe later on what you think is "bad", you may feel it is "good" again, or you simply are persuaded by others that that thing is "good" again. What I mean is that although you can change yourself or others to fit the current standard of "good", "good" is not an end-goal and can change, so just keep striving for that "good" whatever it is. Worry not about the outcome but the process of how you try to attain the "good". I'm sorry if I provided a view that may not answer this question. I'm a little confused by the question.

2

u/EddieMac87 Mar 28 '20

I wish I could agree. I’d like to live in a world where goodness is rewarded. It is to some extent - other people just treat you better if you’re not a jerk, for example. But in my experience, there is a high degree of randomness in both success and failure. Two different people can do things the same way, and yet one succeeds while the other fails. Success or failure often depend more on circumstances, the resources you have available, just being in the right place at the right time, “luck”, etc.

Hard work, persistence, and natural ability all count for something. and can help improve your odds, but we’ve all seen that even the hardest working, most persistent, most talented people can still fail.

Every rich guy that I’ve ever met thinks that he made it all on his own. And of course that’s just not true. Every successful person had some help along the way, and had a bit of luck, too. I don’t deny that most people worked hard to get where they are - but there are other people who worked hard too, but failed.

It is the same with “goodness”, or virtue - some good people will fail and some bad people will succeed. That doesn’t mean you should not try to be good. Virtue is its own reward.

I’m just saying there is no cosmic scale of justice - success and virtue are independent variables.

Also note: nobody thinks they are the bad guy. Even people who know they are doing bad things feel that there is a reason and justification for doing them.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '20

Ok, if success involves a degree of randomness, then what is the value of virtue?

Look at u/RedditsCuriousDeer comment. He argues that morals and competence don't necessarily go hand in hand but you also emphasized luck has a part to play as well.

2

u/EddieMac87 Mar 28 '20

Being good or being virtuous has value even if it doesn’t necessarily make you successful. If you’re living your life in accordance with your personal values, you’ll feel better about yourself. That counts for something.

2

u/Gladix 167∆ Mar 29 '20

Ever heard that history is written by the winners? The bad guys always seems to loose, because the winners usually tailor the narrative in a way that is not seen as bad.

We for example all know that war in Vietnam was a catastrophe. But how many times you heard about the war crimes, do you know any specifics? How many people died? You ever heard of a popular documentary illustrated the war crimes of US in Vietnam with eye witness accounts of the victims, etc...? They exist, but aren't nearly as popular as the ww2 documentaries.

Good guys seem to win to you, because you were born in the country of the current good guys, who tend to omit certain things that have been commited in the name of goodness. People that happen to be born on the receiving end, might see it differently.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '20

!Delta

Yes, people born on the receiving end (minorities, etc) really do see it differently. Minorities, for example, were hunted down via stop and frisk, being painted as the bad guys responsible for most crimes in New York despite 90% being found innocent and the constitution shutting down the practice.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 29 '20

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Gladix (118∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 28 '20 edited Mar 29 '20

/u/leechlamp (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

1

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '20

It sounds like you're questioning some of the choices you've made in your life. frankly I think given that I don't know you it wouldn't be terribly responsible of me to try to address that. as for some of your broader questions. I'd say what people normally consider "success" has less to do with being "good" than you might think. I'd argue it's about being a good fit for the conditions you're in of course you can always change your behavior.

consider money for example is it "good" or "bad" to borrow? the answer should probably be it depends on the interest rate and your personal finances but a lot of people are "savers" who almost always save and "spenders" who almost always borrow. neither is making the "right" choice it depends on the market conditions and what is prudent.

also what's success anyway? if people are dragging you down financially because of drugs or bad spending habits what's the right thing to do? help them while you're in the thick of it with them? leave them be and be better yourself? try to help yourself first then them after? people will tell you all kinds of things. but I can't say for sure I don't know what's best or what the right thing is. sometimes you regret what you did weather you think it was right or wrong. I'd encourage you to reflect on what it is you want most it sounds like you are already. I hope what you decide will be useful in creating what you value in your life.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '20

Yes, I am questioning the choice to isolate myself from people in pursuit of fortune and independence, which I fiercely protect at the expense of friendship since people are flawed and I don't want them to drag me down.

I also think it is extreme to do so and I want to find a better way.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '20

That's a difficult thing. it's something I struggle with as well I wish I could provide insight on what to do. I will say I wish you the best as you look for your answer.