A buddy and I have an ongoing argument as to whether or not people can be defined by their actions. I say people are people, not actions. It is possible that a person could commit two contradictory actions (in fact it happens all the time), and if this were the case, how could we come to a suitable definition for that person? Also, if who I am were determined by what I do, then if throw a baseball, I am necessarily a throw. This is surely not true. My friend argues that actions are the only way we can define each other, i.e. a mechanic is a mechanic because works on cars, and has expertise in that field. I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the subject matter, or knows of any specific philosophers who have.
Well, I think you can define people by their actions to an extent only. If they repeat actions and seem to like them then you could very well define them by those actions. So for example, a lawyer who enjoys his profession, yes you can say he’s a true lawyer. But an action out of the blue, could be because of misguidedness or a brainwash or just plain mistake or blunder and so you would not be able to define a person by that, you SHOULD NOT define a person by that. But in extreme cases like murder, it is hard to pardon the criminal and start to think otherwise of him 'cause we’re all human and we dread something like murder. Moreover, we are as much a product of our genes as our environment, so to the extent that the environment has been a factor in our action will take precedence too not to mention necessity. Now here’s a concrete example: I read in the Calgary Sun about a woman from another country in the West here and first some people made her get addicted to drugs and then they made her do prostitution. Since she didn’t have any money of her own and she couldn’t do without drugs anymore, so she gave in. So would you say that this woman is in any way to be blamed for her actions? No, if she wasn’t helpless, she wouldn’t do what she did.
Well, no. If you are defined or determined by what you do, then when you throw a baseball you are necessarily a thrower (not a throw: It is nonsensical to say that someone is an action), at least while you throw the ball. Possibly even a single throw is necessary to make you a thrower, if “thrower” means “someone who has thrown”. But I think that “thrower” should mean
I agree with your friend about that actions are pretty much the only things we have to define others. If someone has never built a house in his life, then we’d hardly agree that he’s a housebuilder. Maybe it’s different with occupations. Someone who makes a living from building houses (is a housebuilder) or throwing baseballs (a thrower) can call himself a housebuilder or thrower even though he’s not actually building a house at that exact time.
I think Aristotle had something to say about this in connection with energeia (actuality) and dynamis (potentiality). Someone may have the ability to read and sometimes uses that ability. I’m not certain how it went, but if I remember correctly, then if you have the potentiality then you are what you have the potentiality for. But then, potentiality doesn’t mean what it usually means (most humans have the potentiality for reading, even if all of them don’t know how to).
Well, I’m pretty certain that it’s different between activities. Sometimes the activity defines you and sometimes it doesn’t. A single deed of one kind (say, a good deed) doesn’t make you a person of that kind (such as a good person) but if it’s repeated often enough then maybe it does. I don’t think you actually have to like what you’re doing, though, or even seem to like them. A fisherman who really hates his job, is always seasick but can’t quit his job because then his parents will starve, he’s still a fisherman.
Hi Psquared,
I’m not entirely clear what you mean by “defined”? Are you asking whether or not people are more than the sum of their actions? Sartre, for example, thought along those lines:
"â€Reality alone is what counts, dreams, expectations, and hopes warrant no more than to define a man as a disappointed dream, as miscarried hopes, as vain expectations.â€
But I’d point out that thinking, dreaming and hoping are themselves actions of no small consequence. Stephen Hawking, for example, can’t throw a baseball; I doubt he could even pick his nose and yet most of us would say he isn’t merely a man, but a great man. Our thoughts, dreams, and hopes are an important aspect of who we are.
Michael
I don’t believe a person can truly be defined by his or her actions. Rather, actions are defined by one’s own self (defined by the do-er of the action).
It seems like people should be only defined by certain actions, maybe on a case-by-case basis. But how can we call something a definition if it will be different in two similar (or perhaps exactly the same) situations? What i mean is, shouldn’t the definition produce the exact same results in all cases? For exapmle, if i were to define myself as a drug user because i was addicted to heroin and then define the lady who was forced in to drug addiction (in fact I hesitate to say that this statement makes any sense) as something else, would I not be contradicting the definition of a “definition?” In another way, if I define some constant c = 2.998x10^8, then whatever the thing or relationship that involves the constant, involves the same, defined constant. If I said E = mc^2 and c=(wavelength)*(frequency), c would still be c in both cases, although each equation deals with different properties. It seems to me that a case-by-case basis is not an option since c is and always will be c (by definition). I also hesitate to define anyone as great (Possibly Hawking one of the only exceptions), however I fully believe that a man’s actions can be great.
Polemarchus asked if I “was asking whether or not people are more than the sum of their actions?” Well, not really. More along the lines of “Is a person something specific, irrespective of his actions?”
One last idea I had was that when a person is first born, and he has truly committed no actions, can we define him as nothing? We would if we defined him by his actions.
Excellent response, Psquared!
polemarchus, i like your answer. when it comes to these kinds of questions, i think sartre’s got it.
and on the contradiction thing… that shouldn’t create a problem as far as “defining the person” goes. if i kill someone, then later say “murder is wrong and no one should do it”, that’s not a contradiction at all! because what i say and do is my own unique choice, i can maintain two seemingly “contradictory” positions… if i want to that is! just a matter of choice. i’ve never heard of a rule that says that humans must be 100% consistent in their actions. 
where does this idea come from anyway? i’m talking about the contradiction thing. why is that “bad”? i don’t think it is.
i think the idea comes from concrete, ideological systems of ethics such as christianity or… hmm… “natural law” or other things like that.
people are defined by people in the observation of their actions/words as this is the only way for an external mind to understand another mind.
i do not believe that this is the only definition of who they are, but in others minds it is. your actions and mode of thinking could be rather different and somewhat hypocritical in implementation so from a personal note i do not believe that someone is completely made up of their actions but they are perceived and interpreted by them.
People are defined, in terms of their value to the universe around them, by their actions. Two people who kill for entirely different causes are the same to me, I care nothing for their excuses and rationalisations.
yeh like Not Guilty for Reasons of Insanity which personally, if i could, i’d abolish
I think people could be defined on how those actions are understood.
Wow, you guys are very insightful. I especially like Crafedog and Iknownothing’s points of view. People define each other, so different definitons must exist, since different people have different ways of understanding things. Oh, and Adam, I agree that the rationale behind an action is irrelevant, however I think in some cases it could be considered correct action to kill, for example someone like Hitler.
So you kill Hitler. Then YOU are a killer. Good for you.
I’d poke him to death.
So cruel…
Think of definitions like they are opinions so there are no true definitions. Like im sure i would define church as something entirely different then a priest would.
Thanks for the remarks! 
Yeah, the definitions are relative to the people making them. But I think a definition must be logically consistent, i.e. no contradictions, otherwise any line of logic could follow. So while there may be no true definitions, there are certainly false definitions, many of which are recognizable with enough thought.
don’t you believe in the concepts of “the greater moral good”?
i would argue that killing Hitler before he could commit those attrocities would be a moral thing to do (as i do not believe killing is wrong, only unnecessary, selfish killing) as it would lead to the greater happiness, so in extreme circumstances i believe a somewhat callous, but simple mode of thinking (such as utilitarianism) can be necessary to make the most moral decision
No, especially not when you include the word “moral” in the question. It presumes your morals are better or more valuable than someone else’s.
Regardless of reasons, the act makes you a killer.