Who is the better man?
 

One of the two men is naturally good. He makes all of his thoughts into actions and since he has only good thoughts he is constantly doing good deeds. However one day for some reason he rapes a young girl. He knows what he did was wrong, but wasn't able to help himself. Somehow the thought had popped into his mind so he followed it through.

The other man's thoughts are not quite as pure. Every time he sees anything it is followed by a cruel thought. For example when he sees your mother he considers how easy it would be to kill her and the multitude of ways in which he could do it. Yet even though he has all these impure thoughts he doesn't have the guts to make these thoughts reality.

Which is the better man? There is no right answer only your own.

Second Dude.

He hasn't actually done anything wrong, just he thinks about them.

"Pure" Goodness and thinking yourself as always doing the right thing can lead to very nasty trouble such as...

"I know! lets start killing those nasty Jewish folk! nobody likes them!"

thats Hitler BTW. He thought what he was doing was right.

Reminds me of when I was in the first year of school and the religious studies teacher was talking about how bad it is to gossip. I asked if it's wrong just to think bad things about someone and she replied that, if anything, it's commendable because it shows you have the strength to keep things internal and not release them when they could cause trouble.

The first man is the better man, problem is he's also a very dangerous man.

The second man is a cowardly bully.

Second man... because I am that second man :D.

Seconded.

Alcar...

Strangely I find rape even more disgusting then murder...

so I guess second guy is the better guy

I believe the point to be gleamed is that of self-control.

Alcar...

Curious. That the first ever thought such a hideous thought at all seems to deny the "fact" that he only ever thinks good thoughts. I am also fairly sure that not all thoughts are physically applicable in the real world. Certainly I conjure many abstractions in my own mind.

He is also not only hypothetical, but impossible, while the second accounts for most people, at least half the time. Total control over one's thoughts is only possible, so I am told, from meditation, if it is possible. You cannot choose not to think about anything, that is thinking about it. It is not surprising that he slipped. But such it is, when an angel falls from grace, he should fall all the way.

The order of events is important. This way a good man has turned to the dark side. But do the exact same actions in reverse order make a man better than both these proposals? Someone who committed a terrible crime, realised his error and spends his life doing good as he strives ever onward towards atonement?

Second man.

Thirded...

Second man.

The first man is consistantly good, and knows when he has done wrong and feels guilty. With the development of self control he will become a great man.

The Second man is many steps away from being good. While he does no evil deeds, this does not make him good, it simply makes him neutral (in terms of acts). He is always thinking evil things, if he finally gathers the courage to preform these deeds he will be a very evil man indeed.

The First man is therefore the better man. One deed should not damn you forever.

Two rights don't make a wrong right.

Rape is horrible, otherwise I'd choose the first man.

Second guy reminds me of me and various other douchebags.

Actually, they make a U-Turn.

Your actions define you as a person.

Forthed.

Agreed.

Apart from what every one else has said, if the hypothetical 1st person never thinks evil thoughts, then he dosn't understand evil- he dosn't choose to be good, so to speak. The second person chooses a good life, and therefore is the better man by far.

The second man. If he's always been that way, that's how he is, but it takes alot of stregnth to ignore 'primal' urges like that.

- Rexy

2nd man. What she said. /\

If we play this game and, in doing so, follow all the rules that Venks states we come across something most of you have missed.

According to the exact wording of the story the second man is not too strong not to do these awful things but too scared. The fact that fear is the only thing keeping him from doing wrong and not any sense of morality makes him a bad person, and a weak one.

The first man is the better one simply because he lacks the ability to be a bad man, yet because of this mental defect he cannot be classed as a good man either, as he only acts on impulse although he feels guilt and regret. Because the first man has no control or blocks to stop impulses he is, regrettably, dangerous and as such needs to be contained away from the public so he can be helped. As he only thinks good thoughts he will welcome this rehabilitation and if successful should become a hugely productive member of society.

You proved me wrong, I stand corrected :P. Man nr 1 :P.

So apparently we're all in agreement that I'm a sadistic bastard... okay sure. Be that way.

I thought it was seconding and thirding etc that they to were that 2nd guy?

But if not...fifthed! ;)

I stand uncorrected. Whether it's strength or fear stopping him, it's still actions that define the man, not thoughts.

I don't stand at all, I'm sitting.

But as for that first man, everyone has the right to make 1 mistake...

According to your analogy, a closet pedophile is a better person than someone that accidentally saw a kid nude? Weird...

Exactly. As was pointed out in the 'virtual child porn' thread, you can't judge someone on something they MIGHT do.

Yeah, but that's the thing with analogies. They never apply to every situation the same way.

Are you saying you believe there is no hope of redemption at all? That you believe that one cannot redeem themself? Or change?

That doesn't make sense. It would have to be a person who accidentally wanked to a nude kid, to be comparative, but that still doesn't make sense.

The thing with this situation is that, in real live, no one knows what anyone is thinking. So we don't actually know that Second Guy is thinking bad thoughts, but we know that First Guy has done something wrong. Seeing as actions are the only thing that can actually affect other people, the Second Guy is definitely better.

Of course, that's just using the information we've been given. If the second guy were to go on and actually carry out some of his thoughts, he'd undoubtably be worse, but we aren't told that, so he's not.


Edit: Great topic, by the way!