Ok, this is a picture which seems to be offered as a representation of "good" people. It seems to be an image of a church full of people from earlier in the 20th century. We don't know who these people are, we don't know where the picture was taken, in short we really know nothing about these people except how they appear. They're all well dressed, groomed, well behaved, and the like. They appear to perfectly fit the stereotype of "good" people.
Let's look beyond mere physical appearance. Assuming this was taken in the 1940's, we could apply some crime data to this picture and conclude that @ 10% of those pictured committed "criminal homicide", @50% "robbery", and @45% aggravated assault. Well, that might change one's perception of how "good" these folks were, wouldn't it? What is the likelihood that there are some adulterers in this picture? Wife beaters? Drunks? Embezzlers? Tax Cheats?
Or what about geography? What if this picture was taken in Selma AL? Wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that a church full of white folks in Selma just might be a bit racist? Wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that they might support segregation and Jim Crow? Maybe they all voted democrat because the wanted to continue those things. Wouldn't that chance one's perception?
Finally, this picture makes the point I've tried to make for a while. If all you do to determine who's "good" is look at the exterior of people, when they're at their very best, maybe that's not enough information.
3 comments:
My percentages came from a quick mental average of reported crime data from the mid '30s to the mid 40's. The exact percentages aren't really the issue, and I could have pulled similar data from any period and made the same point. Further, the data is national data, which obviously might not hold perfectly True for the group in this picture, but again, that doesn't change my point. We have absolutely no idea what these people are really like based on one picture.
Indeed, their physical appearance in the picture...their wearing of their Sunday Best, that is...stands for what behaviors which lead most to label a person "good". All we can see is the way they dress. All we see is the specific behaviors we regard as beneficial. We don't see all. We can't read the mind or heart of a person. We can't speak to what they may do whihc they take care not to expose to us. This includes absolutely every person we know.
For those we label "good", we do so because of the behaviors of which we're aware, we weigh the bulk of them against those behaviors of which we disapprove, and then again according just how disapproving we are of those of which we disapprove versus the benefits of that which we prefer from all people. It's not wrong to regard such people as "good" if they're doing more good than bad, and their bad ain't incredibly horrible. But it's inaccurate, because there's only One who is good.
My point exactly. To presume that someone is "good" by observing their external characteristics or a limited number of their actions seems inadequate at best.
I suspect that one could cherry pick enough instances from virtually anyone's life to use as examples of how "good" they are.
I have no problem noting the things people do as "good", I just can't make the leap from categorizing their actions to judging their essence.
Post a Comment