Can an inherently bad person be a good person by doing good deeds

[Alpha1]

Supposed a man was born sociopath, he feel guilty whenever he's not feeling remorse in things he supposed to. He knows for the fact that deep inside he will never be a good person but the guilt keeps haunting him and so as an answer he started doing good things to other people. He won't ask for their praises nor anything in return, he's just doing it as a punishment for himself. And then one day he died, you as judge in the afterlife would judge this person if he deserve to be in heaven or hell where would you put him and why?

[Sy Borg]

If he feels guilt, I'm not sure that he is a sociopath.

Ultimately, our deeds matter more to the world than our internal workings (which only matter to us and bonded others).

[Sculptor1]

Supposed a man was born sociopath, he feel guilty whenever he's not feeling remorse in things he supposed to. He knows for the fact that deep inside he will never be a good person but the guilt keeps haunting him and so as an answer he started doing good things to other people. He won't ask for their praises nor anything in return, he's just doing it as a punishment for himself. And then one day he died, you as judge in the afterlife would judge this person if he deserve to be in heaven or hell where would you put him and why?

What makes the difference between a sociopath and a "normal" person is a lack of guilt or responsibility.]
Thus a person who feels guilt about his own wrongdoings in NOT a sociopath.

You seem to imply that death is met by judgement. If god created a person a sociopath, then surely it was god's plan for that man to act as a sociopath.
God could only, reasonably judge that man and reward him for his sociopathy. He could not reward him for resisting that sociopathy.

[Terrapin Station]

I don't think there are good or bad people, especially not inherently good or bad people. There are good or bad actions. But people are complex and nuanced and perform all sorts of actions.

[evolution]

How do you define and separate 'an inherently bad person' from 'a good person'?

[harrisonriley72]

I'm going to take the perspective that a "good person" is one that's (generally) beneficial to society. I apply this criterion, however, over the entire span of a person's life (meaning you can only determine how good a person was at the end of their life). So now consider a sociopath who has just done a good deed. I wouldn't necessarily predict that he'd end up being a good person because it's not all that likely that he'll continue doing similar things. With the way I've set the scene, you can see that the reproducibility of certain acts is intertwined with whether a person is good. Thus, a person who is internally good is more likely to be good by my definition. As for your example (ignoring whether it's realistic for a sociopath to feel guilt in the first place), I would predict him to be a good person because his good actions are likely to repeat over his lifetime.

Now, I'll tell you why I've chosen to define "good" in this way. The reason I don't really care about the inner-workings of people is that we don't really know much about them. Say what you will about our advanced ability to understand people's intent, but we can never jump into their perspective and experience what they experience. If we want to be extra skeptical, we don't even know that the people around us are conscious; they could just be soul-less, insentient clone people. All we know is our own experiences, and all that matters for our experiences is how the people around us act and how they will likely act over their lifetime. A person could be absolutely evil on the inside, but if their actions don't show any evidence of it, it doesn't make any difference to us. This definition of good is more trustworthy in application and can be applied more universally.

[LuckyR]

Supposed a man was born sociopath, he feel guilty whenever he's not feeling remorse in things he supposed to. He knows for the fact that deep inside he will never be a good person but the guilt keeps haunting him and so as an answer he started doing good things to other people. He won't ask for their praises nor anything in return, he's just doing it as a punishment for himself. And then one day he died, you as judge in the afterlife would judge this person if he deserve to be in heaven or hell where would you put him and why?

It sounds like what you are trying to get at is the difference (if any) between doing good works because of an internal desire to help others as opposed to doing certain works (that society has labeled as "good") because of a selfish desire to fit in.

Personally I feel that deeds are more important than motivation, from a societal perspective.

I vote heaven.

[Calico]

I believe that there are people who are "bad," and others who are good. I can become a bit confusing because bad people can do good things and good people can do bad things. A serial killer might give money to charity, for example. If they are bad it's because they are engaging in certain bad behaviors (unless you believe that a person can be considered bad simply by having bad thoughts). If they continue to do those bad things then I'm not sure how they become a good person simply by doing some good ones, especially if their real intention is to disguised their badness.

[Angel Trismegistus]

Setting aside the problematic concept of "inherent badness," one is yet at pains to make sense of the thread question unless the word "be" is replaced by the word "become": Can a bad person become a good person by doing good deeds? And since a person can only be said to be bad by reason of doing bad deeds, the answer is a simple and straightforward "Yes," perhaps emphasized by an "of course."

[Sculptor1]

I believe that there are people who are "bad," and others who are good. I can become a bit confusing because bad people can do good things and good people can do bad things. A serial killer might give money to charity, for example. If they are bad it's because they are engaging in certain bad behaviors (unless you believe that a person can be considered bad simply by having bad thoughts). If they continue to do those bad things then I'm not sure how they become a good person simply by doing some good ones, especially if their real intention is to disguised their badness.

The mistake here is to attribute any description of a person as an inherent quality.
A bad person is a person who is judged by others to be bad, and the same for a good person. This generally works for many categories a persons. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. And where millions of Americans still thing LBJ was a good president for waging war in Vietnam, try telling that to the parents of a child burned to a crisp by napalm.

The codicil here is that some people are born psychopaths, and others are born with less ability in social skills due to Asperger, or autism. It is likely that their actions could attract more criticisms. Yet psychopathy does not lead to serial killing or violence as much as you might think. Genes for psychopathy predict high in populations of lawyers, CEOs, and military brass, as well as grunts.
If you have ever used the phrase "Thank you for your service", the chances are that you would be addressing a person who is potentially serial killer, yet has taken a more acceptable pathway so he might enjoy killing without attracting legal problems.

[evolution]

NO person is inherently 'bad'.

[Angel Trismegistus]

NO person is inherently 'bad'.

Or inherently "good," yes?

[Ecurb]

From the perspective of a Christian God, who transcends time and space, "acts" are irrelevant to a person's goodness or evil. I tend to agree. Let's suppose we have a sadistic child killer, who has been convicted and sent to prison. He remains unchanged, and if he were ever free to do so once again, he would return to torturing and killing small children. However, he hasn't harmed anyone for 50 years, because he is in prison.

I'd agree with the Christian perspective here: God (who can see into our hearts and minds, supposedly) might well consider this person just as evil as the one who actually tortures and kills. The only difference is opportunity.

Of course the wicked person who repents and starts doing good deeds will probably actually BECOME a better person. Fake it til you make it. The good deeds will (perhaps) recondition his mind and morals. By acting kindly, he will learn to love. By acting nastily he learns to hate.

[evolution]

NO person is inherently 'bad'.

Or inherently "good," yes?

This might be true. BUT, inherently a living thing wants to live, and keep living and surviving. Human beings inherently know that in order to keep living and surviving, individually and collectively, then they need one another. In order for human beings to keep living and surviving it is, inherently, known that they need to love, or be good to, one another. This is on an individual and collective perspective. So, it could be argued that people are, in fact, inherently 'good'.

It does not matter how "bad" someone supposedly is, there will always be a time that they would help another in need, or just be 'good'. But the opposite is not necessarily true. That is; there will always be a time when a supposedly "good" person does not help another in need, or just be 'bad'. Unless, of course, evidence is forthcoming.

[Angel Trismegistus]

Or inherently "good," yes?

This might be true. BUT, inherently a living thing wants to live, and keep living and surviving. Human beings inherently know that in order to keep living and surviving, individually and collectively, then they need one another. In order for human beings to keep living and surviving it is, inherently, known that they need to love, or be good to, one another. This is on an individual and collective perspective. So, it could be argued that people are, in fact, inherently 'good'.

It does not matter how "bad" someone supposedly is, there will always be a time that they would help another in need, or just be 'good'. But the opposite is not necessarily true. That is; there will always be a time when a supposedly "good" person does not help another in need, or just be 'bad'. Unless, of course, evidence is forthcoming.

Fair enough. Being good out of the need to be good is close enough to inherently good not to argue the point.