It is nice to think that some heroic, holy, uplifting figure, male or female, was pure and good. It turns out that what is pure and good is difficult to say. It is difficult to, as the Quakers say, "discern". That is, to identify. My friends were reciting actions and roles of US presidents of yore that cast shade on those leaders. If they were good, why did they take actions which we condemn?
I have read that at one time, Ipana toothpaste had a radioactive ingredient in it since people thought radioactive material would benefit people. I have read that there was an argument between supporters of direct electrical current and alternating electrical current. The two sides each had some advantages to the type they supported.
Maybe it is worthwhile to think a moment about an athletic contest. Will the best man win? We don't think we want the Packers to feel so sympathetic about the low standing of an opposing team that they allow the other guys to win. If I allow my wrestling opponent to win out of sympathy for his financial or social problems, did I do a good thing?
Sometimes, we can use the distant past to get off the hook. I have both French and English ancestors. Maybe they should not have fought. Maybe they could have benefitted from cooperating instead of killing. But anyhow, the battle was a very long time ago.
If we ourselves didn't actually take the action or make the decision, we may be missing some crucial bit of information. Even if the pitcher did give the batter a nice soft pitch to blow out of the stadium, even if that was an unsportsman thing to do, that same pitcher shoveled the snow off his elderly neighbor's driveway. It is just about impossible to accurately account for all the actions, good and bad and unknown, that a person takes in a single day, much less longer periods.
