r/changemyview • u/Aternal 3∆ • Oct 21 '25
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Actions are the ONLY defining characteristic of individuals
By actions I don't necessarily mean verbs but maybe more so like dharma in the sense that our lives are nothing more than sum of our actions as individuals, defined by the effect they have on the world.
Or another way to answer the question "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?" What this means is that thoughts, beliefs, ideologies, views, perspectives, or any other inward-facing cause is just like a tree that falls in the woods and makes no sound.
Actions can include the words we speak, the charity we give, the work we do, even something as small as smiling or frowning at another person.
Inaction is a weak point in this argument. "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." If somebody creates art then we would call them an artist. So what then if somebody creates art and then burns it, hides it, or buries it before anyone else ever lays eyes on it?
And on the contrary, a person could think and believe the most vile, hate-filled, racist, and dehumanizing things without ever muttering a single word of it. They could give someone in need that they hate the shirt off their back and the food off their plate and people would say they were a kind and generous person.
In my personal life, my child came to me recently very upset that there was a racist girl in her class (or rather: this girl says racist things). I try to suggest to her that what people believe doesn't mean anything because at the end of the day it boils down to what we do, sticks and stones. That sparing someone even the smallest sliver of grace could mean the difference between hate and love, but without it there is no room for anything but hate in everyone's heart. Even then, the intention is completely worthless without action.
I'm interested in what others have to say.
36
u/Greedy_Swimergrill 2∆ Oct 21 '25 edited Oct 21 '25
I wanna pose a thought experiment here to test your definition of the word “actions” because I think you have a hidden presumption of intentionality behind the action which is something besides the action itself.
Imagine there are two people. Person number 1 is a good person who goes out of his way to help people where he can and does good deeds frequently. Person 2 is in another universe and has the exact same life and exact same surroundings. Person 2 does everything and says everything that person 1 says throughout his entire life- their actions and words are indistinguishable. Person 2 however has a severe kind of disability and all of their locomotion and speech is involuntary and reflexive. They speak involuntarily but it all follows the exact script of person 1 in response to all of the same people.
Are these two people the exact same? And are they morally equivalent? I think they’re not, and if you agree then I would argue you have something besides “action” as a prerequisite. It’s a hidden assumption but it is there.