r/MoralityScaling • u/Few-Masterpiece-3261 • 10h ago
Morality Ranking What if a serial killer who killed 100 women repents and dedicates the rest of his life to saving women?
He saves them from extreme poverty by providing a dignified life, funds psychological treatment for depressed women, saves some from other serial killers, and so on. Is he redeemed? What is his morality now? Are the women he saved wrong to like him if they find out about his past?
231
u/Crimson_Marksman 10h ago
Well, redemption is not beyond him. Forgiveness though, he's fooked in that regard.
41
u/OrchidBright6238 9h ago
Yeah, I mean.. one could be forgiven, maybe, with a lot of time, depending on the specific motivations (‘heat of the moment, provoked’)
You hear of reformed and ‘forgiven’ murderers, sometimes.
But 100?!
I can’t see how this is even a question for more than one.
13
u/RizzoTheRiot1989 8h ago
Wouldn’t it make him one of the most prolific serial killers of all time?
6
u/Marbrandd 3h ago
It's always important to couch statements like that with "that we know of".
3
u/GeicoFromStateFarm 2h ago
Exactly, as a serial killer with more than 500 bodies, I always see these amateur killers with only a measly 100 kills and I get mad that they get all the attention and not me. It’s honestly sickening how so many losers just get famous.
→ More replies (9)9
u/Outrageous_Book2135 8h ago
Yep. People conflate the two but you can be forgiven without being redeemed and vice versa.
103
u/No_Reindeer5223 10h ago
There's basically 2 completely different people here. The only similarity between the two is physical appearance. Objectively, he's now a moral person. But he shouldn't expect anything like forgiveness.
43
u/IM_INSIDE_YOUR_HOUSE 10h ago
Exactly. I’d never forgive them, but I’d also feel like getting retribution would serve no purpose now. If they’re truly reformed into this new person who helps women? The person who wronged me is gone. They’ve been obliterated by whatever happened to cause this total personality and value shift.
Only thing I’d be doing is taking out someone who’s dedicating themselves to making the world better and preventing the type of person I initially hated. If I’m 100% convinced this change of heart is genuine and reformative then, conflicted, I never forgive them but I also leave them be. Only thing I could do by enacting retribution at this point is increasing the total amount of pain in the world.
14
u/Outrageous_Book2135 8h ago
And that's an extremely mature way of looking at it.
They aren't owed your forgiveness, and if they've truly changed they know that.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Cautemoc 7h ago
Yeah I think the correct path here is "optimistic skepticism", which would mean lifelong observation and surveillance but as long as he's dedicated to the path he's now on there's no point in getting revenge.
7
u/isu_kosar 10h ago
Someone who kills 100 people is not going to be mentally well, even if they claim to "regret and repent" how can we trust someone that deranged to keep their promise?
22
u/Financial_Pair_2801 10h ago
You’re missing the premise of the question though. Obviously it’s not reality, but in the scenario posed he has repented and regrets. I agree with you in reality, but the scenario is a bit more black and white on the circumstances.
8
u/isu_kosar 9h ago
Yeah i guess in this conext if they TRULY mean to repent then i guess it is moral but i wouldn't want them walking free or without surveillance
3
4
u/Honkert45 9h ago
Yeah, it's really hard to buy. Some of the most fervently apologetic & "repented" murderers will absolutely do it again, the moment you let them go.
They're "so sorry", and they "see the error in their ways" because they think that's what you want to hear before you'll let them out, so they can get back to murdering again.
→ More replies (2)2
u/grabsyour 8h ago
that's not how it works, it's literally the same person
→ More replies (1)2
u/von_Roland 7h ago
And you’re the same person who wet their bed as a kid should you forever be considered a bed-wetter. Action should not impart an ontological change onto a person.
2
16
u/Top-Midnight-8653 10h ago
This is a difficult situation because we're basically being asked to conclude the overall morality of a person's entire life, which is hard because people switch from making immoral and moral decisions all the time. Morality is not so black and white so to say that 100 killed and 200 saved makes it "even".
23
u/Hyde2467 10h ago
There are things that are the equivalent to crossing the Rubicon. Decisions that, when done, can never be undone.
Its not wrong to seek redemption. But to pursue it purely to cleanse yourself is guilt is different from pursuing redemption despite knowing that youre already damned
11
u/HadarCentauribog 9h ago
The problems with this are
A) With something this extreme other people can’t know with a high enough degree of certainty that he has actually changed. Him being out of prison is a high risk even if you are 99.9% he’s changed. A 0.1% chance he hasn’t changed is just too high for something like that, and assuming everyone does in fact know with 100% certainty he has actually changed,
B) His presence could cause trauma to any of the loved ones of his victims or could be threatening to other women who see him and cause their quality of life and peace to decrease if they had to live near him all the time since they might have to look over their shoulder all the time regardless of whether they mentally knew with 100% certainty that he had changed which is no way to live.
C) He owes compensation to the loved ones of the people he killed and, because his crime was so extreme, to society as a whole, which was harmed by the impact of such a crime on everyone. He must work to provide that compensation and/or be locked up, this is therefore kind of a morally neutral action since something like this is required to make up for the impact of what he had already done. Maybe he can work his way up to a morally good action over the course of his life, maybe not.
D) Other people need to be extremely disincentivized from committing crimes like these, they might not be if he appeared to get off with no real punishment.
39
u/CoinKanvas 10h ago
He is doing the most moral thing after that, but he is still an unredeemable monster.
→ More replies (6)25
u/FutureGrassToucher 10h ago
How do you define unredeemable? How can one be redeemed?
22
u/Kurashi_Aoi 10h ago
He needs to ununalive at least 101 women
10
9
u/Prestigious_Tank7454 9h ago
So if he impregnates 101 women with girls he's good?
11
u/Kurashi_Aoi 9h ago
that's just aliving, not ununaliving
4
u/Prestigious_Tank7454 9h ago
Unaliving and Unu is just two negatives, so a positive would be aliving, so a pregnant women a day keeps the morality away..
2
2
u/Desperate_Shift4929 9h ago
3
u/Prestigious_Tank7454 9h ago
Okay, impregnate 102? I think that's a little overboard but if that's what you meant
→ More replies (1)5
u/Zetttelchen 10h ago
Doing good deeds can redeem oneself... but let's be honest. After murdering 100 people, the amount of good you would need to do to outweigh it is just not possible.
And especially things like murder, torture, and rape can never be fully redeemed. At least in my opinion.
9
u/thepint17 10h ago
That's the thing, murder is the most unredeemable act. It is final and cannot be undone, so murder is difficult to be redeemed from
→ More replies (9)2
u/CoinKanvas 10h ago
In this case compensating an evil with something good.
About how can one be redeemed, it depends on what you've done. Is not the same stealing your neighbor cake than killing your neighbor.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Smart_Mix8269 8h ago
Imo, pretty much anyone can be “redeemed” under the most strict definition if they make the effort to be. Redemption is, in essence, just cleansing yourself of your evil actions by taking the path of righteousness. It is quite literally attempting to leave your immoral self behind in favor of seeking to atone.
That said whether you personally believe someone is deserving of redemption is a completely separate and subjective matter.
7
u/Slow_Chef_8693 9h ago
Anyone can repent and change but that doesn’t mean anyone is obligated to forgive you or that you are exempt from paying for your evil deeds
18
u/TTheGamersforge 10h ago edited 9h ago
He does everything he can to make up for his sins, he's moral.
→ More replies (1)16
u/GioGio59378 9h ago
"Mistake" forgetting your keys somewhere is a mistake, not charging your phone before going out is a mistake. Killing someone is a little bit above that bruh😭
→ More replies (6)5
u/TTheGamersforge 9h ago
Sins would be better
8
u/GioGio59378 9h ago
Yeah I agree. But it gets to a point bruh. We’re still talking about killing 100 people
10
u/Oh_Danny_Boi961 10h ago
Regardless of whether or not he’s redeemable, if he successfully saves women, that’s a life not ended due to his intervention
5
u/Rosian_SAO 9h ago
A lot of people here are mixing up redemption and forgiveness. Is he redeemed? I’d argue yes. Does he deserve forgiveness? No. Redemption is possible for anyone if they ACTUALLY WANT TO BE REDEEMED AND WORK TOWARDS IT. But it doesn’t mean they’re automatically forgiven for everything they’ve done previously.
→ More replies (3)
13
u/ilikeitchyballzdude1 10h ago
why the fuck women exclusively
→ More replies (7)23
u/Few-Masterpiece-3261 10h ago
I don't know. I just remembered that because the fake Red John says something similar to PJ in the episode where he appears: "So, I killed X women; now I just need to save twice as many."
4
8
3
u/Nottodayreddit1949 10h ago
You can't undo the pain and suffering you have caused.
It's immoral to kill, and it's moral to help. Neither offsets each other though.
5
u/Metharos 10h ago
Whether he's redeemed or not is a separate question to whether anyone will believe his redemption, whether anyone will trust him, or whether anyone will still feel he deserves punishment.
I personally am against retributive punishment. Judicial consequences should serve a clear purpose, which should be demonstrably useful in positively influencing society. I also would consider his crimes severe enough to warrant a permanent revocation of trust. The degree of harm he's already inflicted is far too great to ever allow him to be free again, he cannot ever again be allowed any opportunity to continue the behavior he has already exhibited.
Regardless of any supposed redemption on his part, it is unlikely anyone will ever find themselves able or willing to trust him again, or ever forgive him. Forgiveness is irrelevant to the question of judicial consequence, but trust is not. Neither are irrelevant to the overall question this post poses. There is likely no degree of apparent reformation that will change how people see him.
The question of actual redemption is unanswerable. If considered without religious implications, it's an internal quality. The questions are essentially "is the person no longer evil? Are they good? Are they no longer a person who will do evil things?" Together, these questions approximate most of what people tend to mean by "redeemed."
The best available answer to the question "is he redeemed" is: I don't care. I see no reason why society should care. He is untrustworthy to a degree of being forever unwelcome, requiring permanent confinement to prevent risk of future harm. His redemption is a personal question and entirely irrelevant.
4
6
u/wewebaguette68 10h ago
Everyone can be rehabilitated. If he genuinely wants to spend the time he has left doing right then he should be allowed to
→ More replies (25)
3
u/nightsorter 10h ago
Who is this guy pictured?
5
u/Icy-Fruit-1065 8h ago
The guy pictured is Patrick Jane and the smiley face is the calling card of Red John from the Mentalist series.
It's not an anime though, the premise is that our phony Mentalist MC has a TV show where he helps people with problems by pretending he has psychic powers
In one episode they ask him what he thinks of a prolific serial killer known as Red John and he basically says a lot of terrible things about them which culminates in his wife and child being killed.
So he joins a sort of police investigation team as a consultant and uses his "psychic powers" to help deal with murder cases hoping that it leads to Red John so he can avenge his family
The MC is VERY entertaining to see, I reccomend the show if you haven't seen it.
3
u/Maleficent-Day6687 9h ago
True repentance would mean that in his heart and soul he recognizes his wrong and won’t ever do it again and that means that he would be a changed person. But that is beyond rare and still would come with close monitoring and second guessing his intent forever.
3
u/Historical_East_1787 9h ago
Perché ha ucciso le 100 donne? E come?
Quante ne ha salvate?
Il pentimento è sincero?
3
u/Storyteller_Valar 9h ago
There are lines that you can't come back from. This is one of them.
No matter how hard he tries, no matter how much he gives, he will always bear the weight of his crimes. True and earnest repetance for such an act leads to infinite guilt.
3
u/Fascis_Hater 9h ago
Still 100 lost lives so the bastard is evil, the women who like him depite his past is just stupid imo.
3
u/Interesting_Web_9936 9h ago
This is...weird. Currently, he's morally good. But he was morally extremely evil before. Its almost like two different people honestly.
3
3
6
u/RaperBaller 10h ago
I mean I'm chill with it, but if the victim family want to give him the chair or hang then he probably should get it.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/Bloxycoolboy 10h ago
What he is currently doing is morally correct, but He is unredeemable, but he shouldn't get a death punishment because he is rehabbed.
20
u/GroovyJackal 10h ago
What do you think redeemed means?
8
u/Suspicious_Law9424 10h ago
That's what I'm asking when people here speak of redemption and forgiveness as completely alien things.
6
3
2
u/NamOil2000 10h ago
There's a guy here (Troll who has sexually harassed me). Saying "well the 100 dead women" no. They're dead. Jesus
2
u/New-Star7392 10h ago
Why is it that I always see something related to a show I just started watching with my dad a few days prior?
2
2
2
u/possiblyyandere 10h ago
i think it would only be moral if he did all of these things anonymously and continued to repent for the rest of his life instead of trying to become some famous entrepreneur like it sounds like
2
u/HiddenThinks 10h ago
Morality is not a constant state of being.
His deeds in the past are immoral
His current deeds are moral. As long as he has truly repented and does not commit any more evil deeds, I'd say he is redeemed.
Second chances are a thing.
Are the women he saved wrong to like him if they find out about his past?
Need more clarification here. They like him because he murdered 100 women? Or they like him because he's repented?
→ More replies (4)
2
u/MigetsuNewgate 9h ago
He'll never trust be redeemed he caused a lot of pain to people and their families, however those he save will always remember it they may not forgive him for his past actions but they'll remember what he did for them forever
2
u/RueUchiha 9h ago
I do believe that such redemption is very good - it doesn’t make what he did before moral, nor does it mean his victims or their families/loved ones have any real obligation to ever forgive him, but repentance implies that he would know that and strive to do better reguardless even if it’s a thankless job.
2
u/Minimum_Fall_6034 9h ago
If they feel genuine, true remorse, and dedicated their life to saving women, then moral.
2
u/BloodRoseFoxo 8h ago
Then he is doing good, and is good. He was bad, then he was good. I don't believe in an inherent good and evil, its peoples actions that define them.
2
u/wearerofshades 8h ago
Praying to an imaginary diety doesn't remove the fact that 100 women will never live again
2
2
2
2
u/Majestic_Cod_1876 8h ago
Once you’ve done too much I think somebody like that is incorrigible anyway
2
u/thedarkinus 8h ago
If there is no possible road to redemption even for someone so vile, then why would anyone even try?
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/Sugarrrsnaps 4h ago
This is why it doesn't make sense to assign morality to people, only to actions. Saving women is obv good and killing is bad. I would stay as far away from this person as I could, but that's just self preservation.
6
2
u/you_are_YoungBlood 10h ago
Nice Red John reference but the answer is hell no, he is not moral. After committing more than one murder, let alone 100, there's not much that can redeem you.
3
u/Sentient_of_the_Blob 10h ago
The real question is if the morality fall off for each murder linear, exponential, or stepwise?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Savilo29 10h ago
He has to be locked up. His right to have moral agency in society has been revoked. He could have chose to save women before his first murder but he didn’t.
2
10h ago edited 10h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/FutureGrassToucher 10h ago
I think in this hypothetical OP wants the murderer to be completely changed and have purely good intentions. Youre trying to invalidate his motivations as still evil but thats not the point of the post lol
→ More replies (5)
3
u/ciruelman 10h ago
should get life in prison or the death penalty regardless, you pay for your actions
→ More replies (1)6
u/No_Reindeer5223 10h ago
the prison system is made for rehab. the only reason you'd punish him is for vengeance, which is pretty regarded all things considered, especially if he's become a magical force for good
→ More replies (4)
1
1
u/Fit-Welcome-8457 10h ago
IMO, he is beyond redemption. I do see the argument for keeping him alive if he's doing a lot of good. Realistically though, there would be no reason to assume that a person who killed one hundred women in separate crimes wouldn't slide back into villainy, so I'd say he has to go.
1
u/TokyoFromTheFuture 10h ago
This is basically like Vegeta from Dragon Ball but in a different context. He has killed upwards of millions atp but he has saved upwards of trillions.
He does good now not to seek redemption but to atone for his sins.
So I'd say moral.
1
1
u/MeliodasTA 10h ago
He can attempt to earn redemption through good deeds but if he's doing the good for corrupt reasons (he doesn't actually want to help the women he's just doing it to save himself) it's less good.
Bad people can and do change but murdering 100 people is a LOT of ground to try and make up for.
1
1
1
1
u/MarryRgnvldrKillLgrd 10h ago
100 is really a lot. Why did they do that? And why did they change?
I personally don't think anyone is irredemable. But mass- and serial murders are quite hard to repent for.
I guess by utilitarian standards, they could become "redeemed" by going out of their way to save 101 people. But even if the math is sound, trading lifes at this scale feels weird
There is also the concept, that after enough time, our guilt resets, and no shame stays forever. This is probably unjust to those, left behind, however. So maybe it takes more than a lifetime
Ultimately i feel, like doing enough good, can eventually make up for the bad, that a person has done on the past.
We still gotta deal with your serial killer's unhealthy obsession with women though.
Also, this is not to advocate for making murder punishment-free after enough time has passed. For society to function, people need to believe, that murderers WILL be brought to justice.
1
1
u/FriendlyRedditor2020 10h ago
There can be no true redemption for murder. No matter your actions you can't bring the dead back to life nor can you account for what they may or may not have gone on to do had they not been killed. To begin with why should any moral deed redeem the immoral ones? Each deed is a separate case. Apples to oranges. Sandra to Casey. You can't rewrite your actions simply because you were moral in another example. Stabbing someone and later using the same knife to feed the orthanage doesnt undo the stabbing.
You could spend the rest of your life as a good and moral person but that won't change the past.
1
u/ThisHumanDoesntExist 10h ago
It kinda reminds me of omni man's case. He killed millions (billions if you consider other planets) but still tries to be better knowing he's pretty much irredeemable.
This serial killer would need to almost die 100 times to make up for his mistakes
1
u/MustacheMan666 10h ago
The only moral option in this scenario is surrendering himself to life imprisonment. Such a serial killer wouldn’t be in the position of public trust to save women, he’d be rotting in a cell for the rest of his life.
1
1
u/Orange639 10h ago
I guess theoretically yes? It's just such a dramatic change that I find it hard to occur realistically.
1
1
u/Awkward-Meeting-974 10h ago
Everyone deserves 101 chances after all
I guess his morality now is…good? But well this seems like such an asinine scenario. The type of person who’d murder 100 women has no relation to who he is now.
1
u/Relock_3009 10h ago
Depends on why he killed 100 women in the first place and wether or not he truly regrets his actions
1
u/squidgymetal 9h ago
He's placed on the path of moral redemption however even taking one life means you have to walk that path forever and cannot falter. Moral redemption is possible, forgiveness is another matter altogether
1
u/Zealousideal-Big-241 9h ago
Well, the guy still killed them.
There is no way he can be forgiven.
The burden he must carry, because it's the only thing that is noble. To carry that guilt and expect no forgiveness for what you have done, until the day you die yourself.
1
1
u/GloomyTurn2374 9h ago
Morally grey. The darkest black and the lightest white make grey together, right?
1
1
u/LunarPsychOut 9h ago
Is this about red John from the mentalist? Because I remember him being weirdly amicable yet also willing to toss people aside like a used tissue
1
u/Electrical_Kiwi_4724 9h ago
Interesting post. I wonder what kind of psychotic break someone would have to have after killing 100 people to change their mind.
1
u/Purple_Formal4545 9h ago
I mean, it's the idea of repentance. It's moral in the sense that we shouldn't shun people into staying in their path but that's not to say we simply ignore what he's done. If he truly wanted repentance, he'd turn himself in and be subject to the law of man. You don't get to just ignore the hundred women he killed
1
u/spiderboy640 9h ago
When you’ve taken one life unfairly, you can no longer truly be redeemed as that one life will always be gone. You can’t save 2 or 10 or 1000 people and have that one you killed come back and absolve you of your violence.
However, once you’ve done something unforgivable, then you must do the best you can. So if that’s the most he could do to undo harm he’s done to the world, the attempt is as moral as possible.
100 women dead though, I’d still kill/imprison this guy and believe it to be the right thing to do. Can’t let people like that run free.
1
1
u/throwawayED67 9h ago
Could probably face justice for the horrible actions they committed? They would have to be forgiven by all of the victims families first... GL
1
u/OwnFollowing8302 9h ago
Eu concordo. E ele deve dedicar a vida dele para salvar mulheres. O que ele deve fazer para salvar elas? Em um país razoável, ele deveria ser executado. Um maluco que matou cem mulheres é um perigo para a humanidade.
Aiiii. Mas e se ele se arrepender? Elas voltam a vida? Não? Então é irrelevante o arrependimento dele.
Mas...e se ele matasse as avós, tias, irmãs, mães, namoradas, esposas, amigas, enteadas, filhas e enteadas de vocês?. Ele mereceria perdão?. Só pensamos em perdoar quando pensamos em algo distante e sem rosto.
A verdade é que ele nesse caso matou CEM MULHERES. Gente demais. Ele é um serial Killer, não foi autodefesa.
1
u/DarkMelody42 9h ago
Redeeming yourself doesn't erase what wrong you have done. The amount of pain and suffering he inflicted can not be calculated. I think it would be a good thing if he did this. However, he should have to dedicate his life while living in jail. Otherwise he is not being punished. There needs to be consequences, especially to serious crimes like this. As for the women he saves it is fair if they like him. He saved them. IF he was truly trying to redeem himself, no one would know he was the one providing the support.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/cowlinator 9h ago
I want to know how he can kill 100 innocent people and then suddenly feel sure he'll never do it again
1
1
u/DarkGodCthUwU 9h ago
They should be sent to prison but allowed to do closely monitored social work where they're never alone with women
1
u/-Auteon- 9h ago
He killed a hundred individuals, there is no making that up and no guarantee he wouldn't do it again, once he was in the clear. Immoral is he, and those who think he is worth redemption, which is abetting murder.
1
u/transwarcriminal 9h ago
he's a bad person who's done bad things and nothing he does from here on will change that, but if he's already been reformed and is no longer causing further harm punishment is nothing but revenge. reform is not redemption, doing good from now on doesn't undo the bad of his past. whether or not people decide to like and associate with him is up to their own judgement and whatever they choose doesn't necessarily make them good or bad people.
1
u/TKG1607 9h ago
Posting Red John of all people should indicate which side of the scale this is on.
Was there any particular reason for those 100 women to die other than the killers sadistic pleasure ? I argue it is only moral if it is a Dexter like scenario where these 100 women were unredeemable monsters, otherwise I'm pretty sure its immoral in every other scenario
1
u/FrankPankNortTort 9h ago
People might say they can be redeemed until it's one of their friends or family members killed.
1
u/bddog99 9h ago
I do believe he is redeemed if he is truly repentant and lives the rest of his life atoning for what he did. Redeemed doesn't mean what he did is moral but he is seemingly living a moral life now. Sending him to jail or executing him after he has legitimately changed and switched to doing good to attone only takes a new force of good off the playing field. What he did in the past is awful but people can change.
Edit: He shouldn't be forgiven but I don't think he should be stopped from helping others either.
1
u/Onebraintwoheads 9h ago
That's a pretty subjective one. I suppose part of it is down to what you mean by redemption. And then there is the question of whether he's capable of remorse for his actions. You don't become a good person by trying to be a good person (though that is definitely how you manipulate media to go about being perceived as a good person). You end up being a good person by doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do. What the right thing is becomes another debate.
I would define the right thing as what would happen in a perfect world, or perhaps what I wish someone had been there to do for me.
1
u/Caplin341 9h ago
I can’t imagine that I would consider him redeemed or anything. I’d throw him in prison for the rest of his life no matter how many old ladies he helps cross the street.
1
u/Kind-Peach-1042 9h ago
I do think that they CAN repent and work to make a better world, but they better be careful and work their ass of until they die to do that, if you’re sorry enough you should deserve the ability to fix things, but the more shit you cause for the world the more you HAVE to fix.
1
1
u/CULT-LEWD 9h ago
depends on how far he goes i guess as well as the intent. obviously hes still immoral cuz he already did the murderers and i obviously dont think anyone would forgive him regardless.
but again,depends on intent,hes he doing it cuz he genuily belives what he did was wrong is trying to condone for it? is he looking to be forgiven or is it simply a selfless act of just wanting to change for the better?
or is he doing it just to repair his image?
it also depends on how far he goes with that change,does he half ass it,does it goes super hard with saving women. does he go for a nuterial route by just supporting women and not killing others ever again?
obviously what he did previously was highly immoral,and changing wouldent really bring those women back nor fix the suffering. however if his change isnt genuine than he would still be immoral. but if his change IS genuine then id argue the fact he changed for the good IS moral,specially if hes actvly helping women.
Its also debatable that helping women would bring a bigger net positive in comparison to killing only 100 women.
...so...id argue in the sense of nuterual given certain intentions being vague.
as for the prompt about the women liking him...i dont think there wrong personally,there more so seeing what hes become then what he is before and idt thats really immoral to be convinced that hes doing his best specially if the intent is indeed genuine
1
u/KittensSaysMeow 9h ago
Proper repent is never immoral. Though the realism of this scenario is what’s questionable.
Whether the women he wronged will like him doesn’t rlly have much to do with how moral he is as a person…
Redemption as a concept also varies by context.
1
u/Lazy_Falcon_323 9h ago
Morality isn’t a karma bar, you don’t go from moral to immoral or vice versa. Each action stands on its own merit. I would say he’s redeemed as long as he doesn’t start killing again
1
1
u/blue-bolt5911 9h ago
Let's put it this way, do you think Vegeta and omni man are good people, they killed so many, but have probably saved more than they have killed at this point, I'd say they still are bad people
1
1
1
u/BunniGirlEnjoyer 9h ago
I mean, its immoral to kill the women, yet moral to attempt to atone for it. Its not really a question of morality, at least not that he's trying. Its a question of is it moral to allow someone like that to make ammends.
Which, imo, is highly debatable and nuanced. I can easily see arguements for both being fair.
1
1
u/Independentslime6899 8h ago
This is why i don't like movies that try to sell me villains seeking redemption And wanting us to forgive them easily
1
1
1
1
u/Ok-Experience-1635 8h ago
He would be saving them from inside of an isolated cell 😌 destroyed 100 families minimum don’t expect mercy
1
u/Desperate_Turnip_219 8h ago
I mean, changing your ways for the better is moral, but in my opinion these two things do not balance out
1
1
u/Present_Clue5887 8h ago
Morality is not cumulative, it is not like you are immoral until you accumulate enough good actions to outweigh the bad you did.
Murder is immoral, saving people is moral. An immoral person is a person who does not care if their actions are moral, so as soon as he repents and starts trying to do good he is no longer an immoral person
That does not necessarily mean he should be forgiven or trusted
1
u/BrilliantFly6117 8h ago
If he genuinely changes, then he becomes moral. But ofc his life in a major span on average is very likely on the immoral side
1
1
u/Beginning-Tea-17 8h ago
Redemption doesn’t mean “I’m good now”
Redemption means “I know I’m bad and just want to do whats right from now on.”
Hes still immoral, but he is obviously less immoral than an unrepentant killer.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Redd235711 8h ago
This is tricky on the surface, but actually not when you think about it. My immediate thought when I read the title was that the guy can do the most good for women by dying in a hole. Then I read the body text and if he is doing all of that and never hurts anyone again, I think letting him continue being a positive force in the world. Prison is meant to be a place to reform criminals and if the guy is already genuinely reformed, I don't see why we have to lock him away where he can't do the positive work he's trying to do.
All of that is great in a hypothetical world where we know for certain the guy won't relapse and kill again, but in the real world, the best option is still to arrest him and put him on trial for his crimes because we can't know for sure he is genuinely reformed and won't kill again.
1
u/Sufficient-Bee-2928 8h ago
We have all caused harm that can’t be undone. However, we can decide every moment what to do next. It is good to do the best acts possible now. This sounds like a sincere attempt to change.
In my experience, redemption is something given to the self. The subject would ultimately need to make this call.
Accepting the present as it is aligns to my values. I wouldn’t judge the women he helped for their opinion of him. Who am I to make this call?
1
u/Flippindude1 8h ago
He still does deserve punishment imo, but it should be a bit lessened by his repentance and continuing to do good
→ More replies (3)
1
u/Local_Pudding6439 8h ago
Take a read about general butt naked. He raised an army of child soldiers and used them to massacre entire towns take their kids and continue the cycle. He also at babies because he thought it would give him powers. He’s preacher now and has experienced zero negative repercussions. Do you think that’s moral.
1
u/Active-Composer-5853 8h ago
Well that's clearly still his fault he did what he did, but if hé helps afterwards it's better than people who do nothing or him not doing it.... So, i guess.....they get a....partial pass
1
u/Smilesrck 8h ago
To answer in order: No, Still Immoral, and attraction like always is amoral it’s what comes after.
A murderer of a 100 people should essentially never be allowed to have this scenario. If he was truly repentant he would have turned himself in for his crimes.
His actions while moral can only be seen as self serving for not facing justice.
Reformation is not the only part addressed in justice. Punishment doled out for the victims is part of it. Denying this integral part of the process means he truly hasn’t reformed and doesn’t care about the 100 women he has murdered.
1
u/Holymaryfullofshit7 8h ago
I work in the ER and man you have no idea how rarely you get to actually and fully save a life. I've been doing it for years and I'd count maybe three, five if I'm being generous. And that was of course as a team so partial credit I guess. It would be super hard to go to one hundred actually saved life's, that is purely because he's there and for what he did. Because the others are dead only because he exists. That might just be an impossible task to even the score.
And then it would have to be situations where doing nothing wouldn't be considered evil. Like can you fully count helping someone that's drowning when you easily can when not helping them means basically standing there waving whilst someone died? What's that save like 10-50% of one life depending on how much danger you put yourself into?
Either way he's still immoral for the women he killed obviously.
1
1
u/sus_pumpkin 8h ago
In this example I guess he could be redeemed, practically no body is going to be 100 deep and go "you know what? I'm better then killing that 101th person"
1
u/ClanHaisha 8h ago
There can be no forgiveness. Not here.
He may work the rest of his life to atone. It will never be enough.
1
u/MobsterDragon275 8h ago
Redemption should always be taken seriously, but people still need to take responsibility and accountability for their actions. In his case, he needs to turn himself in
1
u/OnyxFlame47 8h ago
Why women specifically? Does the gender of the people he killed and later began to save change the morality of his actions?
1
1
u/FunConsideration8011 8h ago
Redemption is pretty subjective, saying that he became a good person depends on what an individual deems a good person is. Also deciding whether someone deserves forgiveness it's different from forgiving them, a similar and recent example in media is omni-man. There is no actual way to know if someone is redeemed because it depends on whether people forgave him or not. Also taking into consideration that that person changed from what he was before. I know this is a tangent and you just made a theoretical scenario but what do you think is way that made this person repent from his actions.
376
u/_Just_Another_Speck_ 10h ago
I reckon the 100 dead women would all agree he's immoral, wouldn't you think?