This topic has kind of been on my mind lately. Some people say that people are either inherently good or bad, and it's all predestined. Others say that people themselves can't be categorized, yet their actions paint the picture.

Personally, I don't think that people can be considered good or evil... I'll even take the extreme example, Adolf Hitler, and say he wasn't evil. What he did was unbelievably devastating and for that, he should be in hell. But didn't he also accomplish something good in his lifetime? I'm no history expert, but I'm sure he did something to pull Germany out of the shambles it was left in after World War I. At the other end, have figures like Mother Theresa (I would pull out that rotating emoticon if I knew where it was...) and Gandhi really done no wrong? Yet, why do these people instantly draw us to a conclusion of whether they're heroes or villains? Do you think you can measure someone's goodness, rank them on some scale to measure them? How do we do this? Discuss!

No, it's totally subjective and varies by person. But I think if somebody does something unspeakably horrible like Hitler they can be considered an evil person. Or, at the very least, misguided.

Basically, if the good outweighs the bad, you're good. I think that's how most people "measure." Gandhi's positive impact on society was and is huge, while his negative impact is nearly nonexistent. And let me clarify--if you are INTENTIONALLY wrong, and hurt others, that's what makes you evil per se. If you don't mean to hurt people but sort of do anyway, you're just stupid.

Just depends on what the general public deems good or bad.

I could sleep with my sister some time ago, not anymore!

Well I could but it's seen as disgusting now.

Things change as time goes on, 100 years from now certain things we think are bad may be acceptable.

No. People are judged by what they do and not by what they are.