Ethics

Can a good deed be thought in any way to offset the mark of a bad one, or does the moral worth of either sort exist independently? If a person commits a crime we say is unforgivable (say, murder), do we nevertheless suppose that the deed might be atoned for by some (albeit tremendous) combination of benevolent deeds, or do we mean that that the crime's weight is absolute regardless of peripheral acts? -andy

Comments

I think there are two separate questions here, both contained in your first sentence. A good deed can indeed offset the mark of a bad one, but that does not mean that the moral worth of one action depends in any way on the moral worth of another. The moral worth of a particular action depends only on the action itself and the reasons for which it is performed. No amount of repentance or benevolence can erase the wrongness of a wrong act such as murder. That said, there is more to morality than the moral worth of particular actions. We also make moral judgments about people: Mary is a good person; John is wicked. And when it comes to evaluations of one's moral character, subsequent acts can and should play a role.

Suppose that after John kills Mary in a fit of rage, he spends the rest of his life trying to make up for his crime. After serving his time and "paying his debt to society," John devotes himself to the goals that were most important to Mary. She was a dedicated advocate of the preservation of endangered species, and thus--even though he has never really cared much about wildlife--John becomes such an advocate himself. He donates large sums of money to the World Wildlife Federation and works as a volunteer as often as he can. In order to atone for his horrible crime, John commits himself to living a virtuous life and to seeing that at least some of Mary's life projects are fulfilled.

Now, none of John's actions makes his intial crime any less wrong. The wrongness of that act must be judged on its own. However, our judgment of John's character--of his moral worth, rather than the moral worth of his action--surely is (and ought to be) affected by his subsequent behavior. Even though we will continue to condemn his killing of Mary, we may come to respect and even to admire his life dedicated to virtue.

Read another response by Matthew Silverstein

Read another response about Ethics