Separating Action and Actor

A lot of factors go into considering somebody a good person.  We look at their values, the way they behave towards others, how they make us feel personally.  A "good" person follows a moral code, and contributes society.  Of course, sometimes we have to do some things that are not completely good, but there are always extenuating circumstances.  After all, nobody is perfect.  There can be slip-ups, mistakes, accidental harm, all sorts of not good things that good people do.  But they are still good people, are they not?  They still show us good examples through most of their behavior, and what harm they have done can be excused.  At least, this is what we wish to be true.  Unfortunately, it is probably not.

Let us take an example.  Woody Allen is widely known to have screwed over Mia Farrow in their marriage, leaving her for their adopted daughter.  We can argue that this is not illegal, nor should it be, but it is undeniably creepy behavior.  More troubling are the accusations of molestation by his biological daughter.  Naturally, he denies them, but he has already shown himself to be unconcerned about the attitudes of the society around him towards his sexual activities, so why would we not give more weight to those accusations than his denials?  He is suddenly a "bad" person to the public, assuming there is any truth in the accusations.  He is a degenerate and a criminal, a thoroughly selfish and self-centered person.  He is also a great film-maker.  Being famous, the vast majority of us have no opportunity to snub him at a party, but we could demonstrate our disapproval of his actions by not seeing his films.  Boycotts have long been a way of pressuring businesses to meet with societal standards, so why should we not do something similar in this case?  The sad truth is that it will probably have no effect on him, nor on anybody else except those who earn their living working on his films.  A protest of that kind is not against the content of the film, or the conditions under which it was produced, but against the director(/actor/writer)'s personal life and behavior.  He is already wealthy from his past successes in any case, so boycotts at this point do little to persuade him to change what he does in his private life.  He will only consider himself a misunderstood artist, and a poor, poor victim of a puritanical society.

We can find a different sort of example in Richard Dawkins.  While not an artist, Dawkins does have a public life and platform, and he does benefit from selling his works and charging for appearances.  Many people credit him with being one of the major factors in their leaving organized religion or faith altogether.  He, along with Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennet, has been the face of what is known as New Atheism, a loud response to religion in the modern world.  For those who doubt or outright do not believe, his sharp criticism and unsugared remarks about faith and the faithful have been encouraging, uplifting, and comforting.  However, he is also human.  Like all of us, he has his failings and weaknesses.  He is dismissive of women and women's experiences when they do not serve the pro-atheist narrative.  He is oddly minimizing of the effects of child abuse.  Still, these are his personal opinions.  He was not speaking for the entire movement of Atheism, or for any other organization (as I recall), so a boycott of his lectures and refusal to buy his books would do little to change his mind, and again, foster a sense of unwarranted persecution.  The situation is most certainly not the same, however, as with a film-maker, painter, or musician.  The works that Dawkins produces are not separate from his personal opinions, they are meant to disseminate them.  An artist might represent an opinion or view in an artful way that can be appreciated for its own sake, but Dawkins' works are his own voice, not a mere representation.  He has been an important voice.  He has made resounding, powerful statements that needed to be heard.  So we hesitate when asked, is the good work of the past enough to outweigh the bad faith (sorry) of the present?

In the end, we each have our own hierarchy of values and moral behaviors.  We put up with things that others will not tolerate based on their own codes.  The limits of our forgiveness are built on shaky ground, constantly threatened and shifted, but always our own.  While it is laudable to be coherent and consistent in our morals, we ought also to keep in mind that we are all human, imperfect, and full of self-justifications.