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.
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 is the answer. You can tell a lot about a person on how they treat people that they cannot use to make themselves richer or look better.
When you die, you will bring no money with you. You will bring no material items. Your words will be forgotten. Your name will eventually crawl its way back into the abyss of non-existence from where it came along with all the others. The ONLY thing that will have mattered in the slightest in your measly and momentary existence is how you made others feel. To live a life with any sort of self-importance is to rob yourself of the only thing that matters in the entirety of the known universe.
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.
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.
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.
This you?
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.
If they lie all the time, they are probably willing to do other awful things as well.
If they are willing to steal outside of a desperate situation, if they treat someone who’s been good to them awful, if they treat those beneath them awfuly, if they judge based on location, race, etnicity, etc. If they put whatever fantasy world they live in, over reality (antivaxxers and such, and yes religious people).
If they co-operated with Jeffrey Epstein, they only belong in the woodchipper.
Ocular patdown
If society was only copies of this person, would it be better or worse to live in than current society?
Oh no, my puddle of depression is gonna become a tsunami of depression.
A society of "me"s is cooked. Unable to do anything because its too scary to go outside.
The worst thing you’ll run into is another depressed puddle. Can’t be too bad unless you’re something like a reckless driver because nothing matters.
If they are willing to hurt other people for their own benefit or for no reason. Or if they are willing to help someone else do that. (Like how republicans voted Trump into office to keep him out of prison.)
Louis Rossman had a video years ago that really got me looking at people differently. An obvious sign for him is how they treat animals. animals sadly are often the ultimate litmus test for ones morality. I find that respecting an animal, its boundries and its emotions is a thing only possible when youve developed a (imo) basic sense of empathy, that for pets and animals cant be expressed verbally.
Think of times when a person was trying to force an animals to behave in a particular way purely for self intrest. Or if someone you know outright denies the complex emotions of animals. I am by no means an animal rights activist and i often can be heard yelling at my dog to stop barking or etc. But i think even if we “own” them most good people dont think of pets as propperty, status symbols, or entertainment.
the moment i see behavior like this I try to correct and if they actively fight me on it or make no attempt to improve. I will disconnect from them entirely, not worth it. If thats how you treat family, i dont want to see how you treat friends.
Their ability to return their shopping cart to the corral
Small addition: while nobody is watching. Or at least they think nobody is watching.
The true litmus test.
How people behave towards animals is a really big one for me. If someone doesn’t like cats or dogs or any sort of critters for any reason other than a traumatic childhood attack memory I assume something is deeply wrong with them. I realize plenty of bad people don’t hate animals, but I assume if you do then you can’t be good.
My mom dislikes animals but she isn’t mean to them, she just avoids having anything to do with them
I don’t judge persons (because I’m not in their head), I look at their actions.
Also, I tend to steer away from the ‘good’ vs ‘bad’ (persons, thoughts, sexuality, religion, and so on) that were and still way too often used to hurt people one doesn’t like or agree with.
By their behavior.
If a person operates as if nothing is unconditional and they expect something in return or else you are deemed worthless, they’re a fucking cunt.
If a person continually makes a situation about themselves even when it’s 100% not, that’s a red flag.
If they whine and complain to get what they want or have others do for them, they’re a bad person.
Yelling at a newborn baby in a punishing manner as if they have any understanding of anything.
Sometimes they’re just easily overwhelmed and can’t think clearly. Not an excuse but at least it’s the background of their actions, they’re not doing this in complete awareness and out of malice. Nonetheless, we have the moral duty to know and correct ourselves to the best of our abilities.
Oh I totally get it. But when the pattern persists, it may take another’s intervention to correct the behavior. That’s opening up a whole new can of worms.
“There was definitely a more virtuous path to take here, why didn’t they? Are they just that stupid? Emotionally overwhelmed and unable to be righteous? Or are they in full awareness and capacities, but they just don’t care?”
The answer gives me a data point, and with a collection of points (fewer are needed the further the decisions are from virtue) I make my assessment.
