Title error: Will*
I’m not talking about me but I do wonder. Basically, the questions are about your willingness to help someone who did something that goes against your morals.
Hi @user1138, thanks for writing in. Here are my responses:
First question: If someone is abusive towards others and pushed people away, it’s possible to argue that they’ve created their own circumstances. However, loneliness and depression are serious issues, and ignoring them entirely might only lead to more harm. While people who were hurt by this individual may not feel obligated to help, that person still remains a human being. The question then shifts from deserving help to needing help. If they acknowledge their past actions and seek to change, offering support could allow for growth and redemption. But if they continue mistreating others, then sympathy alone isn’t enough. Firm boundaries must exist.
Second question: Actions like murder or theft have major consequences. Helping doesn’t mean excusing their actions. It means ensuring accountability while also preventing further harm. If someone has committed such crimes, they should face justice, but there’s also a question of rehabilitation. Should society aim to reform people or only punish them? Many who have committed crimes later express remorse, and in cases where they seek rehabilitation, guidance can prevent them from repeating mistakes. The support needed here must be thoughtful. For example, in Singapore’s prisons, convicts are given access to counselling sessions when necessary. Helping a convict doesn’t mean endorsing their actions, but ensuring they take responsibility and grow from it. Singapore’s criminal justice system (AGC, SPF and SPS) is justifiably harsh on offenders, but rehabilitation is still possible if convicts make a conscious effort to better themselves.
Third question: Infidelity is painful, breaking trust in profound ways. Those who cheat cause deep emotional wounds, and whether they deserve help depends on their mindset. If they justify their actions or repeat them without remorse, there’s little space for meaningful support. But if they acknowledge their mistake, confront their flaws, and want to rebuild trust, then guidance may have value. In my opinion, this situation is different from the previous two. It’s about rebuilding personal integrity rather than repairing harm on a larger social scale.
Best regards,
HanSolo2000
Befriender | let’s talk by mindline
It’s a tough question, and the answer isn’t always easy. In mental health care and volunteer work, the focus is on helping people who are struggling, regardless of their past actions. Everyone deserves compassion and support, even if they’ve made mistakes or hurt others.
That said, accountability is essential. A person who has mistreated others needs to recognize the impact of their actions. Part of healing for them is taking responsibility. However, that doesn’t mean excusing their past—it means giving them the chance to grow, reflect, and hopefully change.
For victims, their pain and experiences are valid and should be honored. They deserve support, and helping the person who caused harm doesn’t mean their suffering is overlooked. It’s important to strike a balance: while the person in need of help must acknowledge their mistakes, they also need a chance to heal.
And for those who feel they are beyond help, it’s crucial to remind them that growth is possible. No one is perfect, and everyone has the potential to improve and make things right. Empathy for both the person struggling and the victims is key to helping everyone move forward.
It’s an interesting age-old dilemma isn’t it? An example I think about is lawyers defending criminals. It can be difficult to understand/accept why defense attorneys represent cold-blooded murderers, rapists, and individuals who may have committed terrible crimes. Beyond the remuneration/business aspect of taking on clients, I think one of the main arguments is “innocent until proven guilty” and this line between innocence and guilt can and should be debated (based on facts, rationale and narratives) because there are many truths, perspectives and situational factors leading to a behaviour or an act. Another argument is that everyone has basic human right and guilty people have rights too.
I think about helping people in general in a similar fashion. Everyone has their own story, upbringing and circumstances that we do not know about or can ever fully understand. These factors contribute to their behaviours, actions and thoughts consciously, and most times, subconsciously. We do not have to like the individual nor accept their behaviours to help someone. We help someone because it will make the world a better place for those around him/her and for society at large (because we are all interconnected).
That said, will I go out of the way to help someone whom I do not respect or trust, the answer is probably no. I will lend a helping hand to someone who is ready to be helped and supported. It’s important to prioritise our limited energy on where we can make the most positive impact - and not dwell on what we cannot change or what that does not contribute to greater happiness 
reminds me of this recent case: Who is Josephus Tan, the lawyer who represented Megan Khung’s mother pro bono?
tldr: Hurt people hurt people.
Hi @Jaws,
Yes, it does remind me of this particular court case too! This is why a delicate balance between justice (for the victims) and rehabilitation (for the offender) is necessary for society. 
hi @user1138 ,
Since you are asking what i would do, here is my personal views:
I do not believe that i should evaluate someone’s worthiness of receiving mental health support based on my personal views of that person. That is discrimination and that should not occur within the mental health field.
These questions you are asking is not just a subject of debate within mental health communities, but also of multiple others. Some of these questions for you to think about are:
These questions may not be easy to answer with just a yes or no. At least for mental health, the approach i would take is don’t discriminate.
