Have you ever thought about how unfair it is that evil people can be "redeemed" in the public eye if they do but one thing right, like … I dunno, save someone bus full of children from drowning? People will fawn and newspapers will report how nobody could have thought that evil person would be so good!
But then if someone who's done good deeds all their life, like the founder and chairperson of some massive privately funded charity, is found snorting cocaine off a dead prostitute's ass, then suddenly they're rotten to the core and nothing they did, none of the lives they saved, are ever remembered as good deeds.
I think that's a bit unfair. I think the people who've done terrible things would have to do at least THAT amount of good before we even start patting them on the back. And while I don't necessarily think we should allow good people to snort cocaine off dead prostitutes' asses, or treat them more than fairly in a court of law for crimes that any one of us could commit, but could we not at least remember to balance the good with the bad? You know, accept that there are no saints, and even if there were, some of those had their god maul children with bears.
Fairness is very elusive in this current environment. It seems especially so in the context of fame and notoriety. It is questionable whether fairness can be attained in such a context. I think that this happens because the general population as a whole is too forgetful over a long period of time. whereas the individual remembers what the person did wrong. It's moral relativism, and really all it shows is how fickle human judgement is. Fairness is a relative term, used by people in group-think.
Unfortunately much of the human makeup is putting folks on a pedestal and then reveling when they fall off. The solution: don't elevate people.
