NationStates Jolt Archive

You know two people.

One of them, Person A, is impeccably honest, with herself and with others. Sometimes (not with any particular excess) she does wrong, but when she does, she is always willing to admit it, and expresses sincere regret.

The other, Person B, nearly always does what is right--more often than Person A. But when he does wrong, he is completely unwilling to admit it. He will use any argument, however dishonest, to convince himself and others that his behavior was perfectly acceptable.

Which is the better person?

Which would you rather be friends with?

You know two people.

One of them, Person A, is impeccably honest, with herself and with others. Sometimes (not with any particular excess) she does wrong, but when she does, she is always willing to admit it, and expresses sincere regret.

The other, Person B, nearly always does what is right--more often than Person A. But when he does wrong, he is completely unwilling to admit it. He will use any argument, however dishonest, to convince himself and others that his behavior was perfectly acceptable.

Which is the better person?

Which would you rather be friends with?

In general, the more honest of the two... although, I guess it does depend on the extent of the 'wrong' they're doing...

I would prefer to be friends with A.

A is the better person.

I am person B.

As long as I was aware of their particular traits, I wouldn't judge my friendship on these points.

Which is the better person?

By what values?

As long as I was aware of their particular traits, I wouldn't judge my friendship on these points.

That's interesting. Why not?

Is it just not what you care about in a friend? Or is there some ethical notion of tolerance involved here?

By what values?

Yours.

I'd go with Person A. Everyone makes mistakes, and therefore everyone is going to do wrong at one point or another. Being able to admit your mistakes and expressing regret is therefore, in my view, a better judge of character than just being able to do right.

Besides, I tend to go all out in an attempt to prove someone wrong so Person B and I would always argue with each other.

while i generally prefer a person who can admit to being wrong, i wouldnt use that as a basis for friendship.

a good person is a good person and a small character flaw is no reason to not be friends with them.

A. I could make an objectivist argument about the willingness to accept reality, one's role in it, face it with open eyes and to be wrong sometimes, but I don't think it's necessary. I'd just prefer being around that person.

I'll go with person A.

Those B people piss me off. Especially when they do something to slight you and you bring it up and they are like "well, that wasn't my intention so if you were hurt then it's your fault for being stupid".

Just give up already.

If you hurt someone's feelings, you hurt their feelings, just apologize.

I'm with Barringtonia that the traits as described really don't have much bearing on my decision to include either of these people as my friends. Granted, they are important, but they cannot exist in a vacuum, so there are a lot of other factors that go along right beside them.

I mean, for example, being honest is good and I would call it a virtue, but it is not always the end-all-be-all depending on context. On the other hand, doing the "right" thing is also always important, but even when being called out on being wrong, you have to be sometimes be willing to stick to your guns if it is something you deeply believe to be true.

It's just a difficult dilemma to resolve in deciding which of these two are "better" with only what you've told us.

I'm with Barringtonia that the traits as described really don't have much bearing on my decision to include either of these people as my friends. Granted, they are important, but they cannot exist in a vacuum, so there are a lot of other factors that go along right beside them.

I mean, for example, being honest is good and I would call it a virtue, but it is not always the end-all-be-all depending on context. On the other hand, doing the "right" thing is also always important, but even when being called out on being wrong, you have to be sometimes be willing to stick to your guns if it is something you deeply believe to be true.

It's just a difficult dilemma to resolve in deciding which of these two are "better" with only what you've told us.

I wouldn't call being honest a virtue, or lying, both can be equally damaging to people. I'd rather be friends with someone who knew how to be honest when needed, and lie when needed.

That's interesting. Why not?

Is it just not what you care about in a friend? Or is there some ethical notion of tolerance involved here?

It is interesting in the sense that people are attracted to honesty, they respect, look up to that trait and aim to be friends with honest people. I can both understand and accept that. I would just find that this attitude would serve as a limit to the people I hang out with.

Yours.

At this point I could go into a long essay about the dynamics of how we surround ourselves with people, what we seek out and why [in my opinion], I might find an article instead since it would probably express my opinion better and I know there's stuff out there along these lines.

In short summation, some people find honesty an important trait they wish to identify with, some don't. Personally, I'm hunting for information and experience different to mine - that is what I value.

Any statement starting with 'I' is unverifiable on forums - nobody knows I'm a dog - but I would guess other people would say I have an extremely wide range of friends.

I'd certainly rather be friends with Person A, and being a person who values intellectual honesty very highly, my "gut feeling" is to go with her on who is the better person, too. But I remain unsure.

An argument could be made that Person A's honesty is really just a shield for her moral cowardice: she talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. Sure, she recognizes her wrong deeds, and apologizes profusely for them... but she still does them. What difference do her words, even her thoughts, make? She may recognize her moral imperfections, but they are still moral imperfections.

Person B, on the other hand, may be an obnoxious asshole sometimes--but you can probably trust, when push comes to shove, that he'll do what's right.

More annoying, perhaps. But a worse person? Not clearly so, I think.

An argument could be made that Person A's honesty is really just a shield for her moral cowardice: she talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. Sure, she recognizes her wrong deeds, and apologizes profusely for them... but she still does them. What difference do her words, even her thoughts, make? She may recognize her moral imperfections, but they are still moral imperfections.

I find 'justification' a very interesting word in respect to this - does one justify one's actions through apology or denial? We spend a lot of time justifying, trying to place logical explanations on irrational behaviour - I welcome a little irrational behaviour, though I love logical conversation, and I prefer people who do not attempt to justify it.

By 'irrational' I don't mean 'mad', more simply acting without thinking.

I'm with Barringtonia that the traits as described really don't have much bearing on my decision to include either of these people as my friends.

I didn't mean to suggest that they do, or that they should. It's an "all else being equal" question--I'm not really asking "What do you value in your friends?" in a general sense, I'm just asking which of the two traits you like more in the people around you.

On the other hand, doing the "right" thing is also always important, but even when being called out on being wrong, you have to be sometimes be willing to stick to your guns if it is something you deeply believe to be true.

Certainly, if you do "deeply believe" it to be true. That is honest.

The dishonesty of "Person B's" is that they will excuse their own actions even if they don't "deeply" believe they are right.

It's just a difficult dilemma to resolve in deciding which of these two are "better" with only what you've told us.

What else do you want to know? If the problem's clarity, I'll be happy to clarify any ambiguities.

B is the better person because they do what is right more than A does. I'd much rather be friends with B than A. At least with B, they'll do the right thing more often than not, and definitely more often than A. A's honesty makes her come across as an idiot with absolutely no knowledge about the real world and how it works. Besides, nine times out of ten, I'll probably be wrong and agree with B when he's wrong anyway.

I was married to the female version of person B for 13 years.

A's honesty makes her come across as an idiot with absolutely no knowledge about the real world and how it works.

How does it do that?

I don't mean that she is necessarily honest in all circumstances, towards absolutely everyone. To deal with that is to get into another series of quite different ethical questions. I merely mean that she is willing to admit her mistakes, that she doesn't let her pride get in the way of honestly assessing herself and her actions.

Would B, as a consequence of his refusal to examine his actions honestly, necessarily lack the capacity for self-improvement?

How does it do that?

I don't mean that she is necessarily honest in all circumstances, towards absolutely everyone. To deal with that is to get into another series of quite different ethical questions. I merely mean that she is willing to admit her mistakes, that she doesn't let her pride get in the way of honestly assessing herself and her actions.

Whenever I hear someone described as "impeccably honest", I think of either A) an annoying busybody, or B) someone who doesn't realize that "honesty is the best policy" never works in real life. Then again, perhaps I'm just a cynic who immediately thinks negatively whenever someone is described by another person as honest.

Keep in mind, the OP did state that (emphasis is my own)
...Person B, nearly always does what is right--more often than Person A.

As far as I'm concerned, that makes B a better person than A. Even taking into account A's honesty, I personally don't think it's a worthy trade-off. As long as B does the right thing more often than A, I'm willing to accept his stubbornness as a cost of being with him.

Hmmm... Person A (the publican) vs. Person B (the Pharisee)... Jesus liked the publican better, and I'd have to say I do too. Person B is lacking in integrity, and in such a way as to display deep insecurity. Person B is not only a worse person, but a more unpleasant one to be around, assuming everything else about them is the same.

You know two people.

One of them, Person A, is impeccably honest, with herself and with others. Sometimes (not with any particular excess) she does wrong, but when she does, she is always willing to admit it, and expresses sincere regret.

The other, Person B, nearly always does what is right--more often than Person A. But when he does wrong, he is completely unwilling to admit it. He will use any argument, however dishonest, to convince himself and others that his behavior was perfectly acceptable.

Which is the better person?

Which would you rather be friends with?

Better by what standard? A is morally better, but B is better at being...better.
Anyway, I'd rather be friends with person A. I couldn't take someone who thought he was right all the time and I definitely couldn't take him if he actually was.

Everyone hates me.:(

But not because of any failing of my own! All of YOU are flawed! *Walks away in a huff*

... and I definitely couldn't take him if he actually was.

Ha ha, yes, very true.

There's a part of friendship where it's better to be wrong even when you're right, otherwise you're just annoying.

Would B, as a consequence of his refusal to examine his actions honestly, necessarily lack the capacity for self-improvement?

Ooh, good question!

I think not--not "necessarily." There'd be some shame at the bottom of his defensiveness. And if you made clear sight easier for him--if you reduced his incentives to do wrong--he'd probably be able to be more honest about those moral cases.

Then again, perhaps I'm just a cynic who immediately thinks negatively whenever someone is described by another person as honest.

This, I think.

Everyone hates me.:(

Not just you. I think most NSGers, of the two, tend more toward Person B.

Not me, though. Not by my judgment anyway.

Quick question: why was Person A female and Person B male - random, intended or a reflection of attributes you unconsciously apply to gender*

* not so much on being right or wrong but on ability to admit failings over denial

So then, B would improve more slowly then A, correct?

Not necessarily, no.

If you can get past his intellectual dishonesty, B is still more likely to follow through on his moral convictions than A is. It'll be easier to convince A that she does wrong... but harder to get her to actually change her behavior.

Quick question: why was Person A female and Person B male

Because I believe in alternating gender pronouns. The traits have nothing to do with it.

If you can get past his intellectual dishonesty, B is still more likely to follow through on his moral convictions than A is. It'll be easier to convince A that she does wrong... but harder to get her to actually change her behavior.

From my perspective, this is just more nails in A's coffin, but I think I wore out my welcome here yesterday.

From my perspective, this is just more nails in A's coffin, but I think I wore out my welcome here yesterday.

*Gathers angry mob of NSGers*

From my perspective, this is just more nails in A's coffin, but I think I wore out my welcome here yesterday.

No, you didn't. You just annoyed me for a moment. :)

You know two people.

One of them, Person A, is impeccably honest, with herself and with others. Sometimes (not with any particular excess) she does wrong, but when she does, she is always willing to admit it, and expresses sincere regret.

The other, Person B, nearly always does what is right--more often than Person A. But when he does wrong, he is completely unwilling to admit it. He will use any argument, however dishonest, to convince himself and others that his behavior was perfectly acceptable.

Which is the better person?

Which would you rather be friends with?

On this alone I can't really say who is the better person...there are more factors involved than honesty. However, I'd rather be friends with the first. I cannot abide people who are unable to admit when they've fucked up. It's too hard to deal with them...I can't just let it go.

I'll go with person A.

Those B people piss me off. Especially when they do something to slight you and you bring it up and they are like "well, that wasn't my intention so if you were hurt then it's your fault for being stupid".

Just give up already.

If you hurt someone's feelings, you hurt their feelings, just apologize.
Hmmm...this sounds so familiar...like someone I've encountered many times...someone on a forum we frequent...weird...I just can't put my finger up his ass...

Hmmm...this sounds so familiar...like someone I've encountered many times...someone on a forum we frequent...weird...I just can't put my finger up his ass...

OH! Oh! Ummm... Uhhhh.... CTP?:D Yeah, yeah, I know, fASS.

Something that really amuses me is people who are recognize they are "incapable of admitting they're wrong" still think that, most of the time, they're right.

Something that really amuses me is people who are recognize they are "incapable of admitting they're wrong" still think that, most of the time, they're right.

Maybe they're right so often, they've forgotten how to be wrong?

Maybe they're right so often, they've forgotten how to be wrong?

I doubt it :p

Something that really amuses me is people who are recognize they are "incapable of admitting they're wrong" still think that, most of the time, they're right.

Quit posting drunk. It hurts my head.

Then that is an additional variable. The ability to follow through on one's convictions wasn't really what I was getting from the OP.

No, there's nothing "additional" about it. The terms are the same.

A is very honest about what is right and her own failures to fulfill it, but has trouble (more trouble than B) about actually going about doing it.

B is very good at doing what is right, but has trouble (more trouble than A) about honestly acknowledging that his failures are actually failures.

Because A is very honest about what is right, she's easy to convince when she's acting wrong, but she has trouble actually carrying it out.

Because B is very good at doing right, he's easy to drive to action once you've convinced him, but he has trouble being convinced when he starts out wrong.

However, my reasoning (assuming you hadn't crushed it with a new variable) went like this.

I understood your reasoning the first time.

I don't think it's really fair to A to give B this special advantage though, you are pretty much just asking the question:

A is 10% good and B is 90% good, who is better?

Nonsense. There is a question of value here: which virtue is more morally worthy? Intellectual honesty, or strength of will? Person A has more of the first, Person B has more of the second.

Sure, Person B does more good... but he's also an arrogant liar.

You are just saying A is prone to mistakes and doesn't really learn from them and that B isn't prone to mistakes and doesn't really learn from the one's he makes.

But A, unlike B, is willing to acknowledge them as mistakes: she has the respect for others, and for herself, not to be dishonest about what she actually is and does.

You may think that is insignificant. I do not. That's the whole point of this thread: so that we can discuss such values.

I judge others on their potential to do good.

And you're right. On this purely consequence-oriented standard of judgment, Person B wins every time.

But that's one standard.

Quit posting drunk. It hurts my head.

you should know me well enough to know that my grammaticular skills are, if anything, inversly proportionate to my sobriety.

you should know me well enough to know that my grammaticular skills are, if anything, inversly proportionate to my sobriety.

*pokes you with a stick*

Like I sez...

Ahh, so I see now.

I just assumed you were asking a different question. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I honestly thought you were asking who would end up doing more good in the end. That is how I understand morality and ethics, so I didn't understand what you were talking about.

You are just trying to figure out if people translate likability into ethical superiority.

So, in my case, the answer would be no.

You are just trying to figure out if people mistakenly translate likability into ethical superiority.

Not at all.

It's true, of course, that most people probably find Person A more likable--and there are all kinds of non-moral reasons for this. Among other things, such people might make us feel better about ourselves.

But it's also true that Person A has traits that Person B lacks, traits worthy of moral esteem--like honesty and humility.

I think such traits are worthy in themselves, even if they do not mean that Person A at 70 does more good than Person B at 70. You may disagree--fine. But don't suggest that I have asked a loaded question simply because your values tend toward one answer.

You know two people.

One of them, Person A, is impeccably honest, with herself and with others. Sometimes (not with any particular excess) she does wrong, but when she does, she is always willing to admit it, and expresses sincere regret.

The other, Person B, nearly always does what is right--more often than Person A. But when he does wrong, he is completely unwilling to admit it. He will use any argument, however dishonest, to convince himself and others that his behavior was perfectly acceptable.

Which is the better person?

Which would you rather be friends with?

I don't know that I'd say either is the "better person". But then, I'm making an assumption here. You talk about Person B being dishonest with himself. As a general rule, that isn't intentional dishonesty. It's something that happens under the radar and that it takes a great deal of self-reflection to find.

So, with that assumption, I'd have to say that neither is a better person. They both try to do what is right and deal with mistakes in the best way they can.

That said, I would prefer person A over person B, all other things being equal. I dearly love some people like person B, but I find those times when they aren't being fully honest to be incredibly frustrating and disappointing.

Also, I think all of us probably fall somewhere in between the two. So I guess it's more correct to say that I would prefer someone closer to A than B.

A has the capacity to learn and improve. B is unwilling to learn and improve.
A is the better person, and will probably even surpass B in the "doing things right" department eventually.

Which is the better person?

Which would you rather be friends with?

I can't say who's "better", but I'd rather be friends with person A. To me, it's more important to be self-reflective and open to other points of view than to be virtually infallible.

Plus A is a woman, so she's automatically better. ;)

Edit: In other words, I am saying that I don't think the traits are valueable in and of themselves, I think that they lead to making less mistakes to begin with. That is where I derive thier value, out of sheer pragmatisim.

So, to clarify, if you have two people whose moral failures are equal in quantity, and one is honest about them and the other delusional, you see no difference?

I believe that the ones who are weak willed are secretly B's and just act like A's so people will like them. Using their honesty as a shield for their mistakes is, to me, a way to lie to yourself.

How is it "lying"? An A would not pretend that her honesty excuses her moral failures, or somehow compensates for them. She would freely and honestly admit their true nature.

Weak-willed, perhaps, to not do anything about it. But not dishonest.

So to me, people who are truly honest and humble are never weak willed and always learn from their mistakes.

I don't think so. They are separate virtues.

It's perfectly conceivable, for instance, to imagine a very cowardly person who is also quite honest and humble. We can imagine him struggling with himself, trying to get himself to face his fears and do what is right--and failing, because he does not have the strength in him for it.

Having done such a wrong, there is still something noble in his willingness to admit it, some respect for others embodied in his acknowledgment that it is not their lack of worth but his own moral failure that led to his action. It is far from perfect, far from the ideal, but in a world where we are only human, in a messed-up world where injustice so often reigns and we so routinely persist in our complicity, there is a nobility to it.

I'd rather be friends with Person A. I usually avoid making friends with people like Person B, as these people, in my experience, tend to follow the mentality that they're above everyone else and only they can have true success.

You talk about Person B being dishonest with himself. As a general rule, that isn't intentional dishonesty. It's something that happens under the radar and that it takes a great deal of self-reflection to find.

Well, yes... and no.

Person B's dishonesty is in the fact that he is not genuinely reflective, not objective: when he does something wrong, in defending it he'll start from the assumption that he was right.

He doesn't (outright) admit to himself that that's what he's doing, chiefly because he is so bound up in his pride that he refuses to see it.

There's an intent to it, but one he cannot acknowledge.

*snip*

I suppose I concede to this. I still think A is worse than B, but my assumption that A's would always have a strong will was flawed. (Also, it was a "no true Scotsman" now that I think about it. Why did I even make such a stupid argument?)

So let me put it this way, I hate both A and B because I dislike having to choose between the lesser of two evils, but if I had to choose I would choose B.

Better to be blind than to be a cripple, I think. Still, I would rather people be neither...

I think the real point I was trying to make (past all the reactionary stupidity) was that people can be better than both A and B and that there is no best because you didn't have an option C.

I just miserably failed to make that point in the beginning, which is why I don't often speak up...

I don't really like parading my stupidity around for everyone to see, I just happen to be so stupid I can't hide it whenever I bother to speak up...

So yeah, I guess I will just go back to lurking then.

(That’s less frustrating too, since these servers constantly go down and interrupt my posting anyway.)

I think I would probably rather hang around with person A. Less moral issues on my part, as person B is the sort who inevitably gets involved in some sort of genocidal mess.

Also, I find this question quite interesting as the trailer for the Watchmen movie was recently aired.

I suppose I concede to this. I still think A is worse than B, but my assumption that A's would always have a strong will was flawed. (Also, it was a "no true Scotsman" now that I think about it. Why did I even make such a stupid argument?)

So let me put it this way, I hate both A and B because I dislike having to choose between the lesser of two evils, but if I had to choose I would choose B.

Better to be blind than to be a cripple, I think. Still, I would rather people be neither...

I think the real point I was trying to make (past all the reactionary stupidity) was that people can be better than both A and B and that there is no best because you didn't have an option C.

I just miserably failed to make that point in the beginning, which is why I don't often speak up...

I don't really like parading my stupidity around for everyone to see, I just happen to be so stupid I can't hide it whenever I bother to speak up...

So yeah, I guess I will just go back to lurking then.

(That’s less frustrating too, since these servers constantly go down and interrupt my posting anyway.)

This post indicates you're Person A then, at least everyone likes you :)

Anyway, I prefer Person B as well, I know who, if the chips were down, I'd like beside me and it's not a bumbling fool who continuously apologises for it.

As much as people think Person A can improve, I'd wager that Person B is so invested in being right that he'll learn far quicker over his mistakes despite denying them to you, person A will find apology is enough and remain content to never improve.

This post indicates you're Person A then, at least everyone likes you :)


Ah, but they don't, really. Anyway, I like to see myself as an A working on becoming a C. :D

Also, you are aware you pretty much just bashed my by making the comparison, right?

Ah, but they don't, really. Anyway, I like to see myself as an A working on becoming a C. :D

Also, you are aware you pretty much just bashed my by making the comparison, right?

I was going to edit the bumbling fool bit since I saw the implication after I posted.

I just don't care enough to do it though, I don't like messing up my posts with a 'last edited on...' thingamajig either.

So goes the world.

I was going to edit the bumbling fool bit since I saw the implication after I posted.

I just don't care enough to do it though, I don't like messing up my posts with a 'last edited on...' thingamajig either.

So goes the world.

Eh, I don't care, I really disdain myself anyway and I expect others to do the same...

No harm, no foul.

Eh, I don't care, I really disdain myself anyway and I expect others to do the same...

No harm, no foul.

An easy to learn lyric version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i35WRFDcKGo&feature=related

An amusing sports people falling over version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F_TaDgtfpw&feature=related

An easy to learn lyric version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i35WRFDcKGo&feature=related

An amusing sports people falling over version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F_TaDgtfpw&feature=related

I'm light sensitive...

I'm light sensitive...

Nobody's perfect.

Anyway, in following the overall conversation I'd stand by my original point that these are unlikely to be qualities by which I choose friends, if I 'choose' friends at all.

I'd say different friends fit different criteria and I think there's said to be, I think, 7 different types, which I can't remember but break down along the lines of:

The one we seek advice from
The one we moan to
The one we respect
The one who makes us feel better about ourselves (the fool)
The one we agree with

So on...

We take on roles ourselves and these may differ from group to group. An easy way to note this is to think of your own family. A lot of teenage angst is breaking from your role, trying to be individual (yet, ironically, seeking cues from peers to replace family).

If you move out of home and go back, you can be surprised how quickly you fall back into your family role, which might be completely at odds to your social role.

So self-honesty, in my opinion, are very low factors, certainly in the short term, over the long term, and depending how strong those factors exhibit themselves, it may have more effect.

Is that post actually directed at me or is "you" just an informal thing or something.

I prefer B, as A would annoy the hell out of me, always apologizing for being a complete ditz without actually doing anything about it. I'm more of a type B, and I prefer people like me, you could say I love myself :fluffle:.

Person B is much more tolerable, because they will be rarely wrong, I can take equal amount of B's denial or A's apologizing, but will be much better off being around B, as a rule, and he would be far more useful to me.

Is that post actually directed at me or is "you" just an informal thing or something.

The general 'you', aimed at everyone, anyone and no one in particular.

You know two people.

One of them, Person A, is impeccably honest, with herself and with others. Sometimes (not with any particular excess) she does wrong, but when she does, she is always willing to admit it, and expresses sincere regret.

The other, Person B, nearly always does what is right--more often than Person A. But when he does wrong, he is completely unwilling to admit it. He will use any argument, however dishonest, to convince himself and others that his behavior was perfectly acceptable.

Which is the better person?

Which would you rather be friends with?

Thats a no brainer person A.

Which is the better person?
B, if you mean "better suited for a job where if you fail once you die" - like a covert-op sniper.
Else A.


Which would you rather be friends with?A.

you people are way off base. you need a good metaphor

you dance with 2 people. they are both reasonably good dancers. person A will probably step on your foot. maybe more than once. she will always acknowlege it and apologize. person B might step on your foot, might not. if you dance with him often enough she will end up stepping on your foot. when she does, she wont acknowledge it and she wont apologize.

who is the better dancer?

obviously B is the better dancer. it doesnt matter that SOME day person A might be better due to recognizing her dancing problems. today, its person B.

who would you rather dance with?

that totally depends on how much it hurts and how much you enjoy dancing with each person.

not acknowledging a flaw is a flaw but without knowing what the trangression is, you cant say whether or not its worse than doing wrong things over and over again.

You know two people.I'm soooo lonely. :(

Which is the better person?That depends. Why do they behave the way they do? You know I need motives to judge a person's moral worth.

Which would you rather be friends with?The better one. See above. ;)

You know two people.

One of them, Person A, is impeccably honest, with herself and with others. Sometimes (not with any particular excess) she does wrong, but when she does, she is always willing to admit it, and expresses sincere regret.

The other, Person B, nearly always does what is right--more often than Person A. But when he does wrong, he is completely unwilling to admit it. He will use any argument, however dishonest, to convince himself and others that his behavior was perfectly acceptable.

Which is the better person?

Which would you rather be friends with?

There's more involved in being a friend than ethical questions. But if this is the only criterion you're allowing, I would have to say neither. They would both annoy me: person A because facile admissions of guilt and continued wrongdoing imply moral laziness and person B because, even though the wrongdoing is infrequent, the rationalization implies lack of moral center. If you, however, allow more criteria, it would change. Do these people, for example, have a generous natures, a good sense of humor, a willingness to accept others as they are in addition to being morally lazy or lacking moral centeredness? - Then I'd probably overlook their moral issues.

you people are way off base. you need a good metaphor

you dance with 2 people. they are both reasonably good dancers. person A will probably step on your foot. maybe more than once. she will always acknowlege it and apologize. person B might step on your foot, might not. if you dance with him often enough she will end up stepping on your foot. when she does, she wont acknowledge it and she wont apologize.

who is the better dancer?

obviously B is the better dancer. it doesnt matter that SOME day person A might be better due to recognizing her dancing problems. today, its person B.

who would you rather dance with?

that totally depends on how much it hurts and how much you enjoy dancing with each person.

not acknowledging a flaw is a flaw but without knowing what the trangression is, you cant say whether or not its worse than doing wrong things over and over again.
(emphasis mine)

It would have to be the same wrong doing though. All else is the same, so the degree to which they are doing a wrong thing is the same, just not the frequency. Therefore, A will always be the worse person, no matter the level of wrongness. I'd rather have a one time killer who doesn't know or accept or acknowledge the wrongness of killing than a serial killer who realizes they've done wrong, same goes for any other morally reprehensible action, I can't think of one where it'd be excusable on the account of someone knowing they've done wrong, while continuing in their wrongness.

(emphasis mine)

It would have to be the same wrong doing though. All else is the same, so the degree to which they are doing a wrong thing is the same, just not the frequency. Therefore, A will always be the worse person, no matter the level of wrongness. I'd rather have a one time killer who doesn't know or accept or acknowledge the wrongness of killing than a serial killer who realizes they've done wrong, same goes for any other morally reprehensible action, I can't think of one where it'd be excusable on the account of someone knowing they've done wrong, while continuing in their wrongness.

yes. A would always be the worse person (supposing the trangression is one that qualifies you for bad person status)

as regards the transgression...

i have 2 friends. they both have a bad temper. when person A and i get into a political discussion she tends to lose that temper, once a month she loses it to the extent that she slugs me. she regrets it and apologizes. person B loses it once a YEAR and slugs me. she blames it on me and never apologizes.

they are both bad people and neither would continue being my friend. sure, person A is worse in the way that she has little control over her anger but person B is in such denial that i dont see how she would ever change the behavior. in any case, they are both "people who hit" and the differences between them are not as important as that they cant control their tempers.

but what if the trangression doesnt hurt?

suppose its being late. person A is always late. she always expresses regret and always apologizes. but she is still always late. person B is almost never late but when she is she never acknowledges it and never apologizes.

this is a character flaw that is insignificant for the most part. you learn to deal with A's lack of punctuality and to put up with B's lack of courtesy. it doesnt make either of them bad people and you would never choose a friend on the basis of whether or not someone shows up on time.

so while the person who is continually doing bad things is "worse" the friendship thing comes down to how much it hurts. only a fool puts up with a friend who hurts them. only a fool dumps a friend whose trangressions are insignificant.

That depends. Why do they behave the way they do?

A's own rationality and sense of right compels her to assess herself honestly, but her courage doesn't extend much beyond her own mind--while she is willing to risk occasional social consequences for her honesty, she also has certain desires and fears that she can't bring herself to overcome even for the sake of what she knows to be right.

B's a strong-willed, slightly arrogant person who is genuinely committed to doing what is right for its own sake, one with a strong sense of justice that quickly drives him to act. But his capacity to recognize his own failures, when they happen, is impaired by his pride, which makes him incapable of impartial honesty.

Person A

I don't think those two examples are the type of qualities of which I generally rate people with. Both of which have potential to be either good or bad. Things like how much in common you have with the person, and the kind of things you would expect them to do behind your back makes more differences in my book.

I also do not like to put my friends into a rating system, or the idea of "best" friend. To claim one person as best friend requires you to partially withheld from the other not so best friends. I simply do not see the reason why I would want to do that. Different people have different traits and I see it more practical to treat them according without the unrealistic ranking. It simply opens up the possibilities of communication with a wider range of people.

Quick question: why was Person A female and Person B male - random, intended or a reflection of attributes you unconsciously apply to gender*

* not so much on being right or wrong but on ability to admit failings over denial

I was going to point out the whole sexist undertone involve in this question as well. The submissive irrational woman vs the dominant rational men.

You know two people.

One of them, Person A, is impeccably honest, with herself and with others. Sometimes (not with any particular excess) she does wrong, but when she does, she is always willing to admit it, and expresses sincere regret.

The other, Person B, nearly always does what is right--more often than Person A. But when he does wrong, he is completely unwilling to admit it. He will use any argument, however dishonest, to convince himself and others that his behavior was perfectly acceptable.

Which is the better person?

Which would you rather be friends with?

To argue dishonestly that what you did was right when it was wrong is also wrong, in my mind, so I don't think Person B does nearly always do what is right and therefore believe Person A to be the better person. Now, if Person B does less wrong and more right taking into account his bad habit of lying to himself and others, than it's a different manner. It's not an utilitarian decision (although some (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=561212)may disagree ;)), but if Bright>Aright and Bwrong<Awrong, I think it's fair to say B is better.

There are many other things that go into who my friends are besides the moral worth of the person, so I can't say who I would rather be friends with.

yes. A would always be the worse person (supposing the transgression is one that qualifies you for bad person status)

as regards the trangression...

<snip>

so while the person who is continually doing bad things is "worse" the friendship thing comes down to how much it hurts. only a fool puts up with a friend who hurts them. only a fool dumps a friend whose trangressions are insignificant.

I suppose, however it wasn't would you be friends, but an either or. Even when the transgression is minor (one the "doesn't hurt", although I honestly am not sure of any that could have no impact, I suppose it all depends on the circumstances, even being late can be quite significant), then B is still the better bet. Unless you simply can't stand that sort of person, B will always have less of a negative impact on you. For example I would get quite annoyed at a friend who was always late to things we were doing as a group together, as I would always have to wait for them, them admitting fault doesn't help me get any of my time back, I don't mind if B says it was traffic or some other excuse, as long as its infrequent, we're all human after all.

Though I do agree to an extent, being late isn't the end all be all of choosing friendships by, but if that were the only thing I could choose by you'd logically have to go with the one who does you less harm. Of course, illogically, type B's may bother you a lot which would be a reason to prefer A's when the transgression is minor, however this is illogical, their denial does you no harm.

I also do not like to put my friends into a rating system, or the idea of "best" friend. To claim one person as best friend requires you to partially withheld from the other not so best friends.

Don't we "partially withhold" from almost everyone? That's part of life.

To be close to people is always an exclusive thing.

Different people have different traits and I see it more practical to treat them according without the unrealistic ranking.

Aren't some traits better or worse in a friend than others? Don't you like some traits in other people more than others?

I was going to point out the whole sexist undertone involve in this question as well. The submissive irrational woman vs the dominant rational men.

"Submissive" and "dominant" I can see... but I'm not sure how you get "irrational" and "rational." If anything, those two should be reversed--Person A is perfectly rational, she just doesn't always follow through on her rational conclusions (does anyone, male or female?). It's Person B whose rationality is clouded.

In any case, unless you have a particular reason to believe that these associations are anything but coincidental (as, as far as I know, they in fact are), I think I should get the benefit of the doubt here.

I was going to point out the whole sexist undertone involve in this question as well. The submissive irrational woman vs the dominant rational men.

I didn't even notice that genders were given until someone pointed it out, I always read "he" as neutral unless otherwise noted, and "she" as feminine. However I'll accept the OP's reason, since I'm really not that suspicious.

Of course you could read into it, if you wanted and believed that more men are type B than A and women visa versa, and determine that because men are more likely to be type B, they would have less friends (judging from people's responses, A seemed to be far more popular).

You'll get the benefit of my fist, you chauvenist asstron.

You'll get the benefit of my fist, you chauvenist asstron.

Sure it's pretty, but is it art?

Have you thought about decaf?

I've thought about my fist in your face, you impotent skullduggery.

[/spamming]

Don't we "partially withhold" from almost everyone? That's part of life.

To be close to people is always an exclusive thing.

Aren't some traits better or worse in a friend than others? Don't you like some traits in other people more than others?

"Submissive" and "dominant" I can see... but I'm not sure how you get "irrational" and "rational." If anything, those two should be reversed--Person A is perfectly rational, she just doesn't always follow through on her rational conclusions (does anyone, male or female?). It's Person B whose rationality is clouded.

In any case, unless you have a particular reason to believe that these associations are anything but coincidental (as, as far as I know, they in fact are), I think I should get the benefit of the doubt here.

Certainly I would not deny that some traits are more appealing than others, as I have admitted that a person's level and method of gossips matters a lot to me. The problem with ranking is that the notion of best results in the notion of lesser, where the details are lost. It's the question of, to simply treat someone worst, but in what way? Do we really wish to deliberately treat someone worst? Would our judgment of them being lesser results in a obscure view of the person in general?

Well, I admit that rational versus irrational is not the best word to use, even though this seems to be the popular terms use to describe the gender inequality. Usually the rational is describe as the "competence", the thinker, where as the irrational is the "incompetence", the emotional. Yes as you have said this isn't the case since the male character obviously seems more emotionally attached.

I didn't even notice that genders were given until someone pointed it out, I always read "he" as neutral unless otherwise noted, and "she" as feminine. However I'll accept the OP's reason, since I'm really not that suspicious.

Of course you could read into it, if you wanted and believed that more men are type B than A and women visa versa, and determine that because men are more likely to be type B, they would have less friends (judging from people's responses, A seemed to be far more popular).

Actually it is not so much the OP that I am suspecting, but how most people miss the fact that she was used for type A while he for type B. Surely it can just be examples, and even if it is intended there's nothing strange in today's culture. But I simply want to point it out the acceptance of those examples, and the notion of rather this is common sense because it is, or common sense because it is been practice enough in our society that it makes it common sense.

And no, I am definitely not here to suggest rather the OP is a good or bad person in general.

I've thought about my fist in your face, you impotent skullduggery.

[/spamming]

Skulldugger, or skullduggerist, surely?

Skulldugger, or skullduggerist, surely?

Well, skullduggery is a noun, though it is not normally used to describe a person, I'll admit. Perhaps I was inferring that you were less than a person -- that you were merely a nonsensical act of some kind, derived in the mind of a disturbed individual.

But I do enjoy the words "skulldugger" and "skullduggerist." Perhaps reform shall be in a propos in the future....

It's the question of, to simply treat someone worst, but in what way?

Why does our judgment of who we would rather be friends with suggest treating anyone worse?

I don't particularly like many of the people I know, but while I certainly don't go out of my way to enjoy their company, I don't think I treat them badly.

Would our judgment of them being lesser results in a obscure view of the person in general?

How are we judging them as "lesser"?

I don't play video games, and I wouldn't want friends who were bent on discussing them all the time... but that hardly means that I think such people are somehow inferior.

You know two people.

One of them, Person A, is impeccably honest, with herself and with others. Sometimes (not with any particular excess) she does wrong, but when she does, she is always willing to admit it, and expresses sincere regret.

The other, Person B, nearly always does what is right--more often than Person A. But when he does wrong, he is completely unwilling to admit it. He will use any argument, however dishonest, to convince himself and others that his behavior was perfectly acceptable.

Which is the better person?

Which would you rather be friends with?
Person A.

Honesty is the best policy.

Even if A sometimes does wrong, his honesty about it means that I always know where I stand with him and I can trust him because I know what his limitations are.

Regardless of how much good B does, his dishonesty means that I can never know where he draws the line or what I can rely on him for. Therefore, I cannot trust him.

To me, a person's ethics are what make them trustworthy. An honest person is ethical (especially when he's honest about his own faults). A liar is unethical (especially when he lies about his own faults).

I would rather have an honest criminal as a friend than a lying pillar of society.

Why does our judgment of who we would rather be friends with suggest treating anyone worse?

I don't particularly like many of the people I know, but while I certainly don't go out of my way to enjoy their company, I don't think I treat them badly.

How are we judging them as "lesser"?

I don't play video games, and I wouldn't want friends who were bent on discussing them all the time... but that hardly means that I think such people are somehow inferior.

Surely I do not mean that this is completely a conscious choice of some form, which is where the problem comes in. "Best" friend cannot exist without others being lesser than your best friend. But the whole notion is that the lesser element, even though it's there relatively speaking, is completely silenced as something bad of should feel guilty about. Rather or not this creates unconscious biases on your decision making is a question each person has to answer for themselves.

The only problem I see isn't the behavior, just rather or not a person is aware that they are doing this. Withheld from certain lesser friends isn't really a problem so long as you know why you are doing it. Surely if you are fully aware you are doing this, know how it affects you, and choose to do so, then that's your own free choice. I myself cannot tolerate a lying gossiper, I understand their ability to destroy my image among other peoples, but then again I won't really put them in the category of friends either.

So going back into the two examples, how does person A differs from person B, in the sense that how it actually affects you? Why do you judge one over the other, not just an external trait, but in relation to you. It is not to say, don't judge your friends entirely, but rather to move beyond a simple better or worst ranking system.

Although, I am curious about the comment concering treating "lesser" friends "bad"? Even if they are lesser they are still "friends", another bias term in itself. It just means lower on the positive scale. It certainly doesn't stop us from being polite, another obsession of our culture in itself.

So going back into the two examples, how does person A differs from person B, in the sense that how it actually affects you? Why do you judge one over the other, not just an external trait, but in relation to you. It is not to say, don't judge your friends entirely, but rather to move beyond a simple better or worst ranking system.

Certainly we do, and probably should, treat our friends differently depending on their traits, but I'm not sure that that's transferable to this case.

We share different things with different friends--different interests, different preferences, different mutual friends. We can be equally close to all of them despite that.

But there are certain traits that are not just different, but also more or less objectionable. There are certain traits I don't want in people close to me--bigotry (!), dishonesty, cruelty.

I wouldn't mind having a Person A around. The honesty would be refreshing. But I couldn't abide a Person B, whatever his merits as a do-gooder.

You know two people.

One of them, Person A, is impeccably honest, with herself and with others. Sometimes (not with any particular excess) she does wrong, but when she does, she is always willing to admit it, and expresses sincere regret.

The other, Person B, nearly always does what is right--more often than Person A. But when he does wrong, he is completely unwilling to admit it. He will use any argument, however dishonest, to convince himself and others that his behavior was perfectly acceptable.

Which is the better person?

Which would you rather be friends with?

Everyone lies. What matters is to whom, and why.

Everyone lies. What matters is to whom, and why.
Been watching "House" again?

A is the better person.

I am person B.Janus understands.
Complimentarity?

Been watching "House" again?Only the episodes where he says something witty, something cruel, or does something relatively insane. Just those.

A's own rationality and sense of right compels her to assess herself honestly, but her courage doesn't extend much beyond her own mind--while she is willing to risk occasional social consequences for her honesty, she also has certain desires and fears that she can't bring herself to overcome even for the sake of what she knows to be right.

B's a strong-willed, slightly arrogant person who is genuinely committed to doing what is right for its own sake, one with a strong sense of justice that quickly drives him to act. But his capacity to recognize his own failures, when they happen, is impaired by his pride, which makes him incapable of impartial honesty.This may surprise you given my stalwart insistence on the virtue of absolute honesty, but I'd go with Person B.

Pride is, after all, one of those "rational emotions" I've gone on about in the past, which can with a little effort be turned on its head: a strong-willed, slightly arrogant person who is genuinely committed to doing what is right for its own sake can be made to see that honesty must be included under that umbrella. He may need help, but I sense in your description of him the likelihood that he can come around.

A weak-willed person, on the other hand, tends in my experience to be more problematic. Even when you convince her of what is right, she fails in her attempts to match it. Her willingness to apologize is only a symptom of her failure: no doubt she can always explain, honestly, that she wanted to do right but she "just couldn't." That sort of person forever sees herself as a failure--she has no pride, hence her ability to impress through pure humility.

Humility can be a virtue, but not when it serves as an apology for the lack of virtue itself.

Well, yes... and no.

Person B's dishonesty is in the fact that he is not genuinely reflective, not objective: when he does something wrong, in defending it he'll start from the assumption that he was right.

He doesn't (outright) admit to himself that that's what he's doing, chiefly because he is so bound up in his pride that he refuses to see it.

There's an intent to it, but one he cannot acknowledge.

This is what I meant, though. The intent is under the radar. If he really sat down and thought about it, he'd see what he's doing, but he doesn't truly know because he doesn't do the reflection.

As such, he's not intentionally being dishonest. If he were, I would say that Person A is the better person, hands down.

As much as people think Person A can improve, I'd wager that Person B is so invested in being right that he'll learn far quicker over his mistakes despite denying them to you, person A will find apology is enough and remain content to never improve.

How could person B learn from his mistakes if he won't admit - even to himself - that they were mistakes?

It's not an utilitarian decision (although some (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=561212)may disagree ;)), but if Bright>Aright and Bwrong<Awrong, I think it's fair to say B is better.

I don't. But that probably has to do with the fact that I don't think that it is actually being right that determines moral worth. Everyone makes mistakes and yes, some make more than others.

But, in my mind, it is the genuine intent to do right that makes a person moral. In this way, a person who has that intent but makes more mistakes than a person who does more "right" things without effort could be the better person.

And there is also the matter of the degree of mistakes. Perhaps person B is most often doing the right thing, but when he does the wrong thing, it's on big issues. If Person A makes a lot of mistakes, but mostly in relatively inconsequential areas, a weighted Bright vs. Aright might put A ahead in the game.


Though I do agree to an extent, being late isn't the end all be all of choosing friendships by, but if that were the only thing I could choose by you'd logically have to go with the one who does you less harm. Of course, illogically, type B's may bother you a lot which would be a reason to prefer A's when the transgression is minor, however this is illogical, their denial does you no harm.

This really depends on whether or not you consider dishonesty to be harmful, doesn't it? Or how you view the action of apology as it relates to harm.

Personally, I would be harmed more by a friend who made a hurtful mistake and then absolutely refused to admit it or apologize than I would by a friend who did so and then apologized and tried to make amends. The former would seem not to actually care about the harm they caused and, by extension, not to actually care about me.

One thing I've noticed in this thread that some people automatically assumes Person A is a weak-willed person who never learns from their mistakes and will repeat them. Could someone please tell me how that conclusion was reached? How does being able to recognize your mistakes and apologize for them equal inability to learn from mistakes and being weak-willed?

One thing I've noticed in this thread that some people automatically assumes Person A is a weak-willed person who never learns from their mistakes and will repeat them. Could someone please tell me how that conclusion was reached? How does being able to recognize your mistakes and apologize for them equal inability to learn from mistakes and being weak-willed?

Soheran clarified it that way later in the thread.

I didn't read it that way at first, though. I thought it was basically saying that person A makes more mistakes, not that she is unable to correct the particular mistakes she makes.

To use Ashmoria's dancing example, I would have thought it was this way:

Person A: Has a harder time learning the steps and makes more mistakes - stepping on your toes, getting off the beat, stepping with the wrong foot, etc. But she admits to them and makes an honest effort to correct them and become a better dancer.

Person B: Picks up most of the steps quickly and doesn't make many mistakes. But when he does, he won't acknowledge that it happened and argues that he did the dance right so that it can't possibly be his fault that he stepped on your toes or got off the beat. Is so convinced of this that you could show him video of the dance and he would still find a way to argue that it wasn't his fault - he didn't mess up.

You know two people.

One of them, Person A, is impeccably honest, with herself and with others. Sometimes (not with any particular excess) she does wrong, but when she does, she is always willing to admit it, and expresses sincere regret.

The other, Person B, nearly always does what is right--more often than Person A. But when he does wrong, he is completely unwilling to admit it. He will use any argument, however dishonest, to convince himself and others that his behavior was perfectly acceptable.

Which is the better person?

Which would you rather be friends with?

This is a no-brainer: A.

Honesty is more possible than (even the appearance of) infallibility. Anyone willing to lie to themselves will have no problem lying to me. Also, anyone who can take responsibility for their actions without reservation understands how society is supposed to work at its best -- not only would I choose person A to be friends with, I would VOTE for person A over person B.

This is what I meant, though. The intent is under the radar. If he really sat down and thought about it, he'd see what he's doing, but he doesn't truly know because he doesn't do the reflection.

The trouble isn't that B doesn't ever sit down and think, the trouble is that he won't think about it impartially.

His failure isn't a lack of contemplation, his failure is a rationality stymied by his own arrogance.

As such, he's not intentionally being dishonest.

I don't see why not. He just won't admit it to himself--but that's just more dishonesty. It doesn't indicate a lack of intent.

I didn't read it that way at first, though. I thought it was basically saying that person A makes more mistakes, not that she is unable to correct the particular mistakes she makes.

As I imagined it initially, Person A's failures aren't matters of lack of awareness. We can imagine a person whose ethics are for whatever reason distorted or poorly thought out, whose innate honesty ultimately pushes her out of it--but that's not A. She knows when she does wrong, she just has difficulty helping herself.

I don't mean to put moral improvement beyond either of them. I would just suggest that neither is obviously more susceptible to it. They both can learn from their failures, it's just that there are real obstacles both of them have to overcome.

You know two people.

One of them, Person A, is impeccably honest, with herself and with others. Sometimes (not with any particular excess) she does wrong, but when she does, she is always willing to admit it, and expresses sincere regret.

The other, Person B, nearly always does what is right--more often than Person A. But when he does wrong, he is completely unwilling to admit it. He will use any argument, however dishonest, to convince himself and others that his behavior was perfectly acceptable.

Which is the better person?

Which would you rather be friends with?

I'm not sure anyone is either/or at all times. I think I vary between the two depending on mood and situation.

That said, was there a reason A was described as female and B as male? Is it supposed to be representative of the average person of each sex?

That said, was there a reason A was described as female and B as male?

No.

Is it supposed to be representative of the average person of each sex?

Absolutely not!

No.

Absolutely not!

Ok, just checking.

I think A's approach could easily become over the top. Say, if she sees wrong in actions that no-one else considers wrong, and proceeds to constantly apologise for things that are very minor or simply not her fault.

Same polarisation goes for B always claiming he is correct.

In general A would be more socially acceptable simply because of the ability to admit fault; no-one likes excessive arrogance.

'Better' depends on what your goals are.