Should great people be judged on their private lives?

Post Reply New Topic

I posted this in another forum and the people there did not seem to understand what I am tryng to say.

This post stems from a recent discussion I had with an older male. His stance was that "Mr. A was a charlatan and was known for his chaotic private life. Those who have chaotic private lives can't be trusted to be brilliant in their work/profession". I disagree and I believe that many aspies see my point. Does one's private life really matter when the person has made great contributions to society? Do we care what, say, Michelangelo's private life was like? As he is said to have probably been an aspie, should we judge him on what he did when he was not painting (i.e., rocking like many aspies do, isolating himself, etc.?) Should we judge him on his private life and habits as well as on his brilliant work?

How is rocking in a corner chaotic?

I think they are mostly talking about drugs and sex in the private-life.

You cannot judge one aspect of someone's life based on another. I've had this discussion before regarding politicians and their marriages.

I think a person with a very questionable private life can nevertheless make great contributions to society. But I will still judge their private life on its own merits or demerits.

Example: I think "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through The Looking Glass" are major contributions to literature. Nevertheless, the private life of their author, Lewis Carroll, does seem to firt with pedophilia. And for that I judge him harshly even while admiring the books.

Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!

Yes you can judge someone by what they do in their private life, no matter who they are. It doesn't matter whether they are famous or not.

Take this for an example:

How about a guy that says publicly that alcohol should be banned, but drinks at home?

How about a politician that campaigns on family values, but cheats on his wife?

Shall I go on? Of course you can judge people on what they do when no one is looking.

Those are hypocrites though, and their hypocrisy is directly related to a public position - in that case I agree, it should be an issue. However, a politician who cheats on his wife who makes no statements about morality is a different matter. However, the quality of a work of art or piece of literature is not diminished by the personal life of the work's creator - though I will avoid paying for things that would bring someone I really dislike any sort of profits.

Exactly.

It's like being interviewed for a job and the interviewer asking if you are gay/lesbian, if you are in a relationship, and/or if you are planning to have children.

I am reminded of the recent case with the supreme court nominee Elena Kagan. There is lots of talk surrounding her......people claiming that she is a lesbian and hiding it. Why should it matter? It is no one's business anyway. A lot of people also don't realise that some people don't necessarily identify with labels.

Okay, so the examples I gave weren't exactly gray areas. Those are clear cases of hypocrisy.

So take one from a gray area. How about Paul Gauguin? Anybody know who he is?

article

(I don't normally cite Wikipedia, but I'm only posting this one for general information)

If you don't want to read the article, he was a famous painter sometimes reviled, but mostly now praised by the art world. He left his family suddenly, and took off to Tahiti for most of the rest of his life to paint. He became a pederast (look it up), a drunk, and basically reneged on all his responsibilities. By most accounts, he was not a nice man at all. But he produced what many consider to be great art.

Okay, fine. I don't judge his art by his actions. But I do judge him. The guy was a slime ball. Period. The only thing about his life that is poetically just is that he died destitute. His paintings now bring a pretty penny. I'm glad he never saw any of it. He abandoned his wife and children for gosh sakes! Should we NOT judge him for that?

The law did. He died before his sentence began.

I don't think it matters whether one does things that are wrong in private or in public. Wrong is wrong. If you cheat on your spouse, you deserve everything you get, because you've wrecked your family, AND you've violated the public's trust. Same goes for any other activity you might engage in privately. I've always been brought up to do in private just as you would do in public. Because one day, your private life just COULD become public.

Exactly. I can't remember the exact details of the case, but there was a famous rape case around here a few months back. Woopi Goldberg was quoted as saying something along the lines of "It was only a little rape, nothing violent". I lost a lot of respect for her as a person the day I read about this, but I still admire her acting. Especially her role as Gynan (sp?) in TNG.

I don't think having a chaotic personal life makes a person technically bad at their job. It may make them bad at being a human being, maybe, that depends on your viewpoint.

I don't think people with talents should get preferential treatment in the courts though; look at Polanksi and his supporters. He raped a minor but people are saying that this pales in comparison to his work and he shouldn't be punished.

What does the public trust have to do with it? Do people live their lives for the public? We don't know the reasons people cheat......there are two sides to every problem.

Actions speak louder than words. What a person does in their private life IS WHO THEY ARE. A pretty public persona does not a hero make.

Besides, I believe that if you intentionally enter the public arena, you give up the right to much of a private life. You can't pick and choose when you want to be the center of attention. When you start that snowball rolling downhill, you'd better be prepared to keep running.

Some people do claim to be living their lives for the public.

Do we hold nothing to any kind of moral standard anymore? Why don't we just declare a state of anarchy worldwide and all do whatever we want? I mean, even if some of us start killing anyone we don't like indiscriminately, that's our private lives - our personal business. It doesn't mean we're BAD people, who can't make a positive contribution to society, right? Open all the prisons and let those people out, too - they're probably decent folks except for that one mistake that got them sent up. Or two. Or three.

Last edited by Willard on 13 Jul 2010, 6:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.

[quote="Willard] Besides, I believe that if you intentionally enter the public arena, you give up the right to much of a private life. You can't pick and choose when you want to be the center of attention. When you start that snowball rolling downhill, you'd better be prepared to keep running.[/quote]

That's the problem with the public arena. I still think, however, that some aspects of one's private life should be off limits to the public if the person involved does not want to discuss them. If you ask a film star if he is gay or if he has a girlfriend, and he does not want to answer, you should respect his wish. It is no one's business what people do in their private lives, especially in terms of intimacy.

Ah, that's the Polanksi case. I remember that quote. It sucks, I used to like her. But you're right, she's still a good actress.

And I would probably not boycott a film with her in it, so it does look as if whatever you say as a famous person, people will overlook it. I would not ever pay to go see a Polanksi film again. Just out of principle. Might illegally download it, but even then not so sure.

I know some people who are s**t human beings but because they offer something valuable (skill or whatever), people are forced to hang around them. You'll find this especially in hospitals; the consultant may be a total hideous example of a human, but his patients are desperate and 'he's the best'.

Even I would find it difficult to choose between a genius ****** or a moderately competent nice person if my life was potentially on the line. Only thing I can say is the former better make sure he's the best: statistics show that one of the main factor in a patient suing is how pleasant the doctor who messed up was.

I don't argue with that, but again, we as a society no longer have any standard of decency when it comes to what the media is allowed to ask, or print about a person's private life. There was a time when they knew certain things were off limits, but there are no limits now. Its a TMZ planet. Ask anything, Accuse anything, Insinuate anything, and if all else fails to elicit a shock, make stuff up.

Last edited by Willard on 13 Jul 2010, 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, there are some examples given above where the concept is grayer than others. My point was only that we shouldn't NEVER judge people based on what they do in private. There are some clear cut cases when they should be. There are others that are a bit grayer.

One given by Celoneth is of a politician who doesn't preach morality but cheats on his wife. In that case, it's a personal decision. Maybe you might prefer not to judge him, but I would. That's what voting is all about. But I wouldn't insist that you judge him just because I do. That's what makes it a gray area. Politics, unlike the private sector, are one place we actually have the power as individuals to judge in ways we aren't allowed to by law in the private sector (funny how that works, isn't it?). We're allowed by vote to fire politicians based on whatever private morals we hold. Gays can be voted out of office, just because they are gay, but they can't be outrightly fired either from politics or from the private sector based on their sexual preference. Same goes with marital infidelity. Same goes with any other morally questionable activity, as long as the activity isn't illegal.

We judge people, whether or not we want to admit we do. Personally, I adhere to the law, except when the law violates my sense of morality, which is rare. If I needed to hire someone for a job, I wouldn't ask questions that aren't directly related to the job itself. It's the law, and not asking the questions we aren't allowed to ask doesn't violate my sense of morality. Laws that do are far more personally affective.

Here's a bit of food for thought though:

Should employers ask you if you've ever stolen anything, if you've never been caught? Should they be allowed to ask you questions like that, and judge you based on your answers? They do. And, it's not illegal. Should they be able to judge you based on these things that amount to personal knowledge? (By the way, many of the questionnaires about stuff like this are carefully designed to catch people who lie on them). Should they be allowed to ask and judge on these things?

I think so. They're paying your salary, and I think they have a right to know how honest or dishonest their employees are.