If you don’t agree with the concept of good or bad people, you dont have to answer just down vote. If you think a person is good or bad based on where they were born and live you don’t have to answer just down vote.
Through their actions.
Most people are good. Most people forget to be kind to others sometimes.
Some people forget to be kind to others more. I kinda don’t like that.
Some people need to cause others discomfort to feel like they are in control of their lives. I dislike that.
Some people feel that they have the right to or even should cause others discomfort because they have some kind of birthright granted by their religion, how aggressive their ancestors were, or some perception that they’ve worked harder than others. I feel that such people should either be rigorously reeducated or in some way removed from access to other humans entirely.
two things.
- how they treat other people
- what they don’t say
first one is pretty easy. don’t treat other people like pieces of shit, or you’re a piece of shit.
second one, when they see something happening that is wrong and do nothing. you’re a piece of shit.
The book “Sapiens” does a good job framing this. Humans are social creatures. Our social groups define their own norms, mores, values, etc. To be “good” is to align with those values. Clashes happen when groups with vastly different values interact. The old adage “if you were born where they were born, and you were raised how they were raised, then you would believe what they believe” applies here, even though this isn’t always true.
The Internet makes this problem more stark. Our groups aren’t based on location anymore; our neighborhood, our school, our church. We can find our group(s) that align with and reinforce us any time we want. It’s also upset the typical way we define our values, and our society is struggling to catch up.
So long way of saying, good or bad relies on context and the values of those you’re close with.
But fuck people who don’t return their shopping cart. They’re just plain bad.
Removed by mod
are their actions based on how they benefit them?
I also find it important to consider what they think of as “benefitting themselves”.
If good vs bad is dependent upon their actions, then someone extremely selfish can be seen as “good”, just if they have enough ability to think long term and desire a future that would end up making them act “good”.
If good vs bad is dependent upon their thoughts, then good luck finding out what people think. What they say will be completely different from what they think and a lot of them just realise they can easily get away with contradicting themselves as long as they do so in front of someone powerless.
Everybody has the capacity to be an asshole once in a while. To asshole is human.
But in general, people who go out of their way to stir shit up, or be an asshole/intentionally rude about something, then play the victim when they get called out for being an asshole. Waste of fucking space and energy. Just go live on a fucking island with all the other passive aggressive assholes.
I believe people can be good in different ways. I had a friend who had some batshit insane religious beliefs (Baptist), like she said it was worse to kill yourself than someone else, because then you couldn’t repent. But she would do anything for a friend, I had an emergency and she kept my kids even though she had a job interview, as an example. So she was good in actions and I’d argue evil in beliefs.
I have a coworker who is so mean & cutting, complains relentlessly about her husband, prickly person but does a great job at her job, loves her dog, and is great to work with because she Gets Shit Done. Is she good? Bad ?
I guess my bottom line criteria is can you care about others in at least some way, so empathy or sympathy is what makes it possible to be good.
This might be a hot take. I have a hard time with people who constantly drives above the speed limit. To me it says a lot about who they are.
E.g.
-
they believe that rules don’t apply to them
-
that they are egoistic
-
that they are reckless and can’t foresee the potential consequences.
-
that they lack empathy
I think this one depends on which country you’re in. Speed limits here in the US are artificially low. There is an unspoken agreement that everyone goes 5-10 over. I go to Ireland once every couple years and the speed limits on the rural back roads are more like the actual physical limit. Like 80 kph on a winding one lane road that’s barely paved. I’ve tried to reach the speed limit before and it didn’t feel safe at all.
I believe you’re right. In Denmark the speed limit on highways are 130 km/h and limited to 110 km/h near the larger cities. Country roads have limits of 80 km/h, some 90 km/h and some 70 km/h.
Driving 150 km/h on the highway is not safe, when everyone else is driving 130. And most of our highways only have two lanes in each direction.
The speed limit is also typically 80km/h on these barely paved roads in Denmark.
Funny enough I have a hard time with people who drive at the speed limit, for the exact same reasons.
-
I believe in different shapes of people. They see some and they’re blind some. And they have habits.
How do they treat those that are “beneath” them? Customer service workers, pets, kids, etc. Anyone that they should have some sort of authority over.
This and the shopping cart test tells you a lot about a person.
Removed by mod
In addition, how quick they are to declare others to be beneath them.
That’s definitely a big one for me.
If they harm other people, intentionally or not, physically, emotionally, etc. And they could stop but choose not to, then often they are a bad person.
Fair
Easy. By what they say and do.
I assume everyone is good by default, and I’ll usually let a tasteless joke slide once, because we all occasionally put our foot in mouth.
If their actions and words don’t mesh with my own moral compass, they aren’t a person I associate with any more than necessary.
Id agree
Although philosophers who embrace moral realism will have different views, my takeaway is that it is much harder to be a virtuous moral agent than the layperson assumes.
That said, if I find that a person often puts their own interests above those of everyone else, this is a good indication of questionable character.
Removed by mod
Ha! In a few ways, yes.
This is why everyone hates moral philosophy professors
It’s not all or nothing, and small things are universally tolerable. Gluttony isn’t good but most people have someone fat/obese they love and even admire. Excess vanity isn’t good but to a certain degree most women are somewhat vain and that doesn’t make them bad (and men enjoy looking at women when they’re done up too), right? It’s impossible to be perfect, and virtue will be disregarded at times, but I think it’s not that difficult to be above the threshold we all naturally understand (unless you’re an amoral perspectivist): don’t lie, don’t cheat, don’t be coercive or aggressive, don’t mistreat others, take your vows seriously (raise your kids and try to make things work with your partner), be generous when possible, etc etc. And you can always repent and make amends when you fail too, people understand.
It’s impossible to be perfect, and virtue will be disregarded at times, but I think it’s not that difficult to be above the threshold we all naturally understand
This is a practical mindset to have but allow me to say more about where I think the difficulty lies. 1) We commonly do immoral things. 2) The right thing to do isn’t always clear. Let’s consider each in turn.
- Many practices are so commonplace in our time that we no longer feel their moral implications: even when we know that the action is wrong! For example, I eat meat that comes from factory farmed animals; I know that the animals are essentially being tortured, but it’s easy to let price and gustatory pleasure outweigh the moral considerations because everyone else is doing the same. Similarly, I know that the minerals (e.g., cobalt) used to build my cellphone come from literal slave labor of miners in the Congo. Yet instead of buying a Fair Phone, I bought the cheapest phone that served my own needs.
- There are also cases in which our virtues come into conflict. In such cases, the right action to take is not always so straight-forward. For example, is it okay to tell my wife a white lie if I know it makes her feel better? (Deontologists like Immanuel Kant would emphatically answer “no”.) Or, if I have a set amount of money to donate, should I give the money to a random unhoused person, donate the money to someone (who I cannot see) in an even worse position in a poorer country, or give the money to a friend/family? Moral realists (e.g., virtue ethicists, deontologists, consequentialists) all agree that there are definitive answers to these questions, even though they will disagree on what the actual answers are.
To be a morally virtuous persons, it seems you have to be willing to go against the common practices of your own time and you must also be knowledgeable enough to make correct moral judgements. This is a tall order for most of us to achieve.
That makes sense
Empathy
Yep. Real fucking easy answer for me.
If someone tells you a story about how they lost their dog, if that person tries to one-up them, dismiss them, or hurts them… They’re a bad person. No negotiation.
What if someone tells you a story of how they lost their spider?
I would be sad. I’m an arachnophobe, but Spiders are magnificent.
Spider warning
