I don’t think as a general rule most people can change. I do think a small amount of people have changed, redeemed themselves, etc. on a significant level. Maybe a medium amount of people have changed themselves on more minor levels, but generally I think most of the changes people claim are just illusions and facades.
And what is change? To use the pedophile examples above, if someone used to be a molester, but now only fantasizes without any physical actions, is that enough of a change or is it the same thing with a different coat of paint?
Funnily enough, my thoughts on this represent a fundamental change in myself. I used to be more optimistic and forgiving. Even just a couple years ago I would have said that people can change with the right motivation and introspection. Now I don’t think that highly of humanity.
As someone who hates to spend time condemning Kennedy for MJK and thinks that people are being unfair to him when they reduce his life to it, I still have to say: it’s sort of silly to consider not becoming President to be a punishment for taking the life of another. Becoming President isn’t a right inherent to being a Kennedy that in failing to be realized is a harm inflicted onto them. A just punishment would be more like losing his job as Senator, some prison time and definitely an extended period of parole.
More on topic, there are only good acts, bad acts, and men. You can’t subdivide the last category into good or bad, because every one of us will do good and bad during any period of our lives, and we change as people over time.
MLK is (and should be) considered a good man, but he visited prostitutes in an act of infidelity. The Nazis killed tens of millions of people, but John Rabe was a Nazi who risked his own life to save thousands of Chinese men and women from the Japanese during the Rape of Nanking.
There are far too many facts about people for us to comprehend and put into an objective narrative. We’re far too involved and far too limited in perspective to be able to meaningfully judge another individual.
Then maybe you should reconsider the last sentence of your first paragraph. For most people I would say that you were right. But the inner structure of that family was like no other. And he had three brothers who had died violently to answer to.
As it was, I think he actually accomplished more as a Senator for almost 47 years than he could have done as a President.
He certainly didn’t completely turn his life around and become a saint. He remained human. But if you look at the legislation that he is most well-known for, they weren’t laws that were designed to make him wealthier.
His mother was very devout and imparted to him and his siblings a sense of noblesse oblige. They were born fortunate and were obliged to help those who were not. That sense of duty runs through all of that family. So it’s not as if Ted grew up “a bad guy.”
But as is possible with any of us, he made a series of terrible choices. One of the results was the death of an innocent young woman. (She wasn’t a hooker or a woman with a bad reputation even though that wouldn’t matter.)
I think it’s incredibly wonderful that he didn’t spend the rest of his life wallowing in self pity and shame. From my own experience I can tell you that forgiving yourself is half the battle.
You will become many people in your lifetime. Whether or not your moral values change will depend largely on how much courage you have. You may need help. You may fall down a lot and be hurt. It may take a long time – maybe “all day.” Like a one-legged child on an icy slope.
I think the animosity toward Ted Kennedy was that it was not just a careless event but that he deliberately made it worse by his actions. By not contacting authorities immediately there was no chance of rescuing her. He compounded that sin by trying to conspire with his friends to cover it up. He then went so far as to swim back to the mainland so he would be seen at the hotel.
To answer the op, yes I think it’s possible to change. The 2 versions of Ted Kennedy (plus his letter to the Pope) suggest he was profoundly affected by his actions and tried to make amends for it.
Seriously though, I think that a man who has done bad can certainly become good. For those who are worried about “justice”, I think if someone does change and even if everyone forgives and forgets, the person who did those things is still likely to have pain from it buried in their heart. If they have no remorse, then I don’t think it really counts… I don’t think someone who never has any regrets actually HAS changed.
That all assumes we’re talking about the person at their core. If you mean, like has the total sum of their actions add up to an overall positive or negative… well I’d say “of course you can become good”. The problem is that an observer can’t neccesarily tell the difference between the two.
How good or evil someone is depends on tons of variables. Things like genetics, nutrition, environment, illness, social pressure, authority pressure, personal stress, etc all play a role in how people treat themselves and others. And everyone who you consider good has done or thought evil things, or is capable of it. And everyone you consider evil is capable or has done good things.
I think you’re trying to pigeonhole people into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ categories to give yourself a sense of security because you can always surround yourself with good people and excommunicate the bad people. However, human behavior is complex and you are guaranteed to end up confused by doing that, since nobody is just one or the other.
I’m of the opinion that if you give people understanding, knowledge, acceptance and help then for the most part they will be good in return, at least to you. Except for the 3% or so who are sociopaths.
No, bad people do not become good. People don’t change.
Michael Vick was intentionally bad and remains a bad person.
Kennedy was in an accident, based on thinking drink had not impaired him, and was mistaken, something that befalls all of us who have had a drink. The part about trying to duck the consequences is a personality flaw, and he still had that flaw years later, I’m sure. People don’t change.
I think society would be better off realizing that jail doesn’t change people for the better, and go back to hanging people with one bad crime or repeated medium crimes.
As far as I know, no one seriously thinks Michael Vick has had a genuine change of heart. He’s not out there working for the good of the dogs even now; he just has a sweet deal with HSUS’s money-hungry Wayne Pacelle to do some image rehab.
As far as I can tell from extensive discussions, there are people who genuinely feel that what he did to dogs doesn’t matter to football, and people who genuinely have no empathy for dogs at all, but want him to play because they want to see their team do well, and people who think he got a bad deal (18 months) when other people have gotten better deals (like this guy?), but I’ve never seen anyone who credibly thinks Vick’s really remorseful. Certainly the limited remorse he’s displayed, in showcase settings, flanked by lawyers and image handlers, is unpersuasive.
Kennedy wasn’t just in an accident, he coldly and with great deliberation spent more time trying to cover it up then he did trying to save Mary Jo’s life. You have to read the details of the event to understand the nature of his crime. I think it’s apparent from the years that followed that he was a tortured soul and did everything he could to make amends for it.
