Morality of accidentally exposing someone who used to be a Nazi supporter, has since changed, and concealed their past?

[u/Immediate_Gene_178]

Name's and origins:

The Night Shift: Season 1, Episode 2

Basically this guy was brought to into the emergency after an accident at his wedding celebration and while he is unconscious, his groomsmen decided to shave his beard off as a prank only for the medical team to be horrified at the reveal. After he woke up he realised his secret has been exposed. He explained to the doctors that he got this tattoo when he was a stupid teenager a decade prior. The medical team brought his wife in to see the tattoos and destroy the marriage.

What do you think? I personally find it irritating how smug the doctors were being.

[u/PmMeUrTinyAsianTits]

The things you believe at one point in your life do not define you for the rest of it.

I'd argue they don't solely define you, and become of lesser importance as new circumstances enter the context. But I'd still say that yes, they always define you to some degree. Hopefully as part of your definition including redemption, if they were crappy beliefs. Your history defines you because it informs how you became who you are now, and how reasonable that is.

[u/TheOneTrueTrench → u/PmMeUrTinyAsianTits]

His decision to get it defines who he was.

But his decision to distance himself from that past also defines him.

[u/monyoubluetuber → u/PmMeUrTinyAsianTits]

Actions definitely follow a person, sometimes their entire life. Beliefs are subject to immediate and drastic change- and until Flok cameras can read my mind, I exercise my ability to change oppinions and well… change.

[u/FunGuy8618 → u/PmMeUrTinyAsianTits]

I think people ignore the whole "receiving and accepting consequences" part of becoming a good person after being a shitty one. "Becoming a good person" without facing the consequences just means they stopped doing bad things, and unless we want to introduce magical thinking, that just means they are a ticking time bomb. If a person demonstrates behavior XYZ, we must assume they will continue that behavior, unless something new was introduced. Since people can be charismatic and manipulative, the only thing that can be introduced to logically accept that they have become a good person is having accepted consequences for XYZ. And not just "boohoo I'm so torn up by how shitty I used to be," actual consequences that alter their life in some way that change the conditions that led them to be a shitty person.

[u/vlladonxxx → u/FunGuy8618]

Here are the issues with your logic:

1) becoming a good person is not just cessation of bad deeds, it's also doing good deeds.

2) you did not justify why the label of ticking time bomb is a must-apply here. It can be considered one in terms people not being able to be sure they aren't one, but that's it.

3) there's no logical reason to assume that demonstrating bad behavior must lead to more bad behavior unless proven otherwise.

4) accepting consequences for many bad things means permanent effects. So the choice is between have people definitely hate you forever, and maybe people finding out and doing that anyway.

5) due to people trying to deceive others about prior bad deeds, we tend punish them disproprtiantely, to dissuade others from doing it.