And what's the basis of my believing so? Well, let's imagine a scenario where there's a leader of a town. The leader has made tremendous development to the town. Proper housing, no hunger, good education, health care facilities for all - sounds great, right? We can put the leader in the 'good' category. However, there's a problem. No one is free from making mistakes nor is that leader. But if anyone from the town tries to point out his misktake, the leader does everything in his power to shut that person up. Would you still keep him in the 'good' category?
It's understandable how we label someone as good or bad. If a person's majority of deeds are deemed as good, he becomes a good person. Same calculations goes for the person who we refer to as bad. From the moment we distinguish someone as 'good' or 'bad', we tend to think all of their works have to fall in the according category. 'Good' guys' wrong doings get shadowed be their good name and 'bad' guys' good deeds get shadowed by their bad name- no matter how little they are. That's where the evaluation trips. It's all psychological.
Is it really important to distinguish people like that? I think not. It's the action that can be good or bad. So we should focus on that more than how the person is overall when we need to do the evaluation. Makes the process ten times easier, also enables us to avoid one-sided judgement. A good deed deserves to be praised and a bad deed deserves to be reprimanded; no matter who they are done by.
Sounds basic. But not often seen in real life. The best part about having such mindset is that you don't have to be a dead fish going with the flow~ 🐟