>>545055276
>if we acknowledge people's feelings and be kind to them despite their questionable actions we'll have to let criminals go free provided they had a hard enough life
I hope your post is largely motivated by a desire to look and feel coherent or to win an argument.
If someone kills another human being because they had a hard life they might be marginally more excusable than someone who kills another human being for money, but the fact remains that they've killed a human being and the law will have to be applied regardless of their circumstances, and this has nothing to do with my post.

As I wrote before, many people would avoid Chloe on the basis of how she behaves, and they'd have good reason to do so since she does act selfish and bitchy, so I'm not discounting the fact that """we""" judge people by what they do - more to the point, it's a well known fat that """we""" do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
The point about Chloe, and about any random person who behaves in a way you disagree with, is that it would be naive and rash to judge her moral qualities based on her actions alone (which everybody up to this point has agreed to be questionable/irresponsible/bitchy/...), because we have the benefit of knowing where she comes from, and that she was a good person and a straight A student when she had a loving family and dear friends to count on.
You might say that having had a hard life doesn't justify Chloe being a bitch in an attempt to avoid getting her feelings hurt again, and that's a matter of personal opinion, but it would be naive to try to fit anyone in neat categories of "good person, does good things" vs. "bad person, does bad things", be they fictional characters or real people, since both fictional characters and (especially) real people are much more nuanced than that.