fast
Contributor
When we talk about someone that has principles, what are we saying? I'm especially concerned about frequency of deviation. There's a way I view things that I think differs sharply from how others might. Let me give you an example. Take a person that has lied. Most people would call that person a liar. I wouldn't. Most people would say that because he has lied, he is therefore a liar. I disagree with that. I don't think a person is a liar just because a person has lied. Strange huh. Let me give another example. Consider a person who has stolen something. A thief, right? Nope, not necessarily. To me, it takes something else before I'll label a person as a thief for stealing or a liar for lying.
Because of that, I may tend to say that a person has and lives by principles despite what might appear as clear and obvious evidence to the contrary. So why then; why don't I call a liar a liar or a thief a thief? That's just it though, I would and do; it's just that I actually don't think a person is in fact a liar just because a person has once lied or a thief because he has once stolen. So, again, what's going on in my head? Well, again, there is a missing necessary condition that (to me) must be present before i'll judge a person to be a liar or thief.
It has to do with frequency. How often there is an occurance.
The single occurance is enough for you and others, but with me, there needs to be a readily recognizable pattern of repeated behavior. Lying twice or stealing twice is insufficient, and to me, an extremist you are if you lump someone who has lied twice in with someone who lies or steals pervasively. If it's not apart of their character, then it seems to me to be a bit harsh of a standard bar to hold people to.
The problem (or glaring problem) is that to be consistent, I'd have to deny that a person is a murderer unless he has murdered more than once or twice. I have a strong suspicion that denying that a person is a rapist just because he's only raped once or twice is a claim that no person in their right mind is going to accept.
So then, fine, if we take the extreme approach and I follow suit in thought, then I'm left with saying some mighty strange things when at the other end of the spectrum. For instance, I find it ludicrous to call a person a carpenter just because he has nailed a single nail.
No, he's not a math teacher. He's a history teacher. He's taught history for 20 years and substituted in a math class for just one day, so no, call him a math teacher if you want to just because of a single one time indiscretion, but to me, no, he's a history teacher.
No, the guy on the stage is not a magician. It's his second magic trick in 45 years. He's a painter. It just happens that he helped out once 20 years ago and is doing it again today. So, my position is that he's a painter who has performed two magic tricks in his life, but the extremists among us would have me think he's a magician.
This brings us full circle and to the topic at hand; just how strict are we supposed to be before we deny that a person has any principles? I think an habitual liar is clearly a liar. Heck, even if there is no habit to it yet it's an often occurance, he's still a liar.
I just in my mind see such a stark and contrasting difference between a person who lives by no care or concern for his transgressions and lies and steals at will versus a person who has consistently made the right decisions over and over with extremely few exceptions.
The message I could others articulating is that there are no principles when there are exceptions. My question is quite bluntly, is that true? Are we taking the stance that is so hardcore that once a liar always a liar? With that twisted and completely asinine logic, who the hell is alive today that has principles? Sorry sir, we can't include him, he lied when he was three.
Do we not now see what I mean by frequency of deviation? Must the sum of a transgression be zero on the nose? Over that and despite the frequency, conclusion: we're looking in the eyes of someone with no principles?
Because of that, I may tend to say that a person has and lives by principles despite what might appear as clear and obvious evidence to the contrary. So why then; why don't I call a liar a liar or a thief a thief? That's just it though, I would and do; it's just that I actually don't think a person is in fact a liar just because a person has once lied or a thief because he has once stolen. So, again, what's going on in my head? Well, again, there is a missing necessary condition that (to me) must be present before i'll judge a person to be a liar or thief.
It has to do with frequency. How often there is an occurance.
The single occurance is enough for you and others, but with me, there needs to be a readily recognizable pattern of repeated behavior. Lying twice or stealing twice is insufficient, and to me, an extremist you are if you lump someone who has lied twice in with someone who lies or steals pervasively. If it's not apart of their character, then it seems to me to be a bit harsh of a standard bar to hold people to.
The problem (or glaring problem) is that to be consistent, I'd have to deny that a person is a murderer unless he has murdered more than once or twice. I have a strong suspicion that denying that a person is a rapist just because he's only raped once or twice is a claim that no person in their right mind is going to accept.
So then, fine, if we take the extreme approach and I follow suit in thought, then I'm left with saying some mighty strange things when at the other end of the spectrum. For instance, I find it ludicrous to call a person a carpenter just because he has nailed a single nail.
No, he's not a math teacher. He's a history teacher. He's taught history for 20 years and substituted in a math class for just one day, so no, call him a math teacher if you want to just because of a single one time indiscretion, but to me, no, he's a history teacher.
No, the guy on the stage is not a magician. It's his second magic trick in 45 years. He's a painter. It just happens that he helped out once 20 years ago and is doing it again today. So, my position is that he's a painter who has performed two magic tricks in his life, but the extremists among us would have me think he's a magician.
This brings us full circle and to the topic at hand; just how strict are we supposed to be before we deny that a person has any principles? I think an habitual liar is clearly a liar. Heck, even if there is no habit to it yet it's an often occurance, he's still a liar.
I just in my mind see such a stark and contrasting difference between a person who lives by no care or concern for his transgressions and lies and steals at will versus a person who has consistently made the right decisions over and over with extremely few exceptions.
The message I could others articulating is that there are no principles when there are exceptions. My question is quite bluntly, is that true? Are we taking the stance that is so hardcore that once a liar always a liar? With that twisted and completely asinine logic, who the hell is alive today that has principles? Sorry sir, we can't include him, he lied when he was three.
Do we not now see what I mean by frequency of deviation? Must the sum of a transgression be zero on the nose? Over that and despite the frequency, conclusion: we're looking in the eyes of someone with no principles?