If you don’t agree with the concept of good or bad people, you dont have to answer. If you think a person is good or bad based on where they were born you don’t have to answer.
Their ability to return their shopping cart to the corral
Small addition: while nobody is watching. Or at least they think nobody is watching.
If they try to ingratiate themselves too aggressively, if they make way too good eye contact and smile so big and are effusively positive, and they make the hairs on the back of my neck crawl, I know it’s highly likely I’m interacting with a sociopath or psychopath.
Everyone that’s normal has a chance to be good or evil and it changes over time.
If the person hits the trigger points above though I know they aren’t going to be a stable actor to deal with because they will lack empathy, be utterly self serving, and never feel guilt for their actions.
I’ve encountered quite a few of these people in my years and they often are in positions of authority because they are really good at fooling and manipulating people.
I don’t know if this is good or bad but I definitely try to avoid or at least ring fence people like this when I encounter them.
I mainly believe that most people are a product of their circumstances and how they have decided to cope with their experiences. But imo, a good person regularly does things that benefit others without any benefit to themselves. Especially if they’re not obligated to do it. Good people are kind (but not a pushover) to everyone, even if someone is unkind to them.
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 think people can be divided into good and bad, I think it’s more of a spectrum. I generally judge how good a person is by the virtues they show in their actions. I like when people take accountability for their actions, are kind to others, do what’s right even if it’s difficult, are honest, and their actions align with what they claim to believe.
By their behavior.
“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.
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.
Ocular patdown
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.
The [fundamental attribution error)[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error] explains why we perceive people to be good or bad.
I know you said to just downvote, but I really strongly believe the world would be a much better place if people tried to understand the motivations of others, rather than trying to categorise them as good or bad people.
What if my motivation is unfettered lust and that’s why I rape kids? Power and that’s why I’m a murderous colonizer? Is everything perception or, in your opinion, are some things actually just “categorically bad”?
In my opinion categorizing someone as categorically bad is reductive, lazy thinking.
I’m not saying you need to like pedophile rapists and murderous colonizers.
Merely that going through life categorizing the every day people you meet as good or bad is reductive, lazy thinking and frankly - the basis of undesirable cognitive habits like racism and prejudice.
The people you interact with each day are complex individuals with just as much going on internally as you do. None of them think of themselves as “bad”.
I agree but at some point you have to make a decision, because in your personal life you will trust and stay away from people based on that judgement. Basically, people cross a threshold one way or another, where that lies is somewhat different from everyone (in intensity not direction) but not by much.
Racism is the opposite though: regardless of your deeds, you’re good or bad if you’re part of my personally accepted tribes.
And whether they think themselves as bad when it’s warranted or not is inconsequential. Of course their nasty, vicious deeds are beautiful in their eyes, they’ve taken a million steps away from virtue, they can’t recognise it and if they did they’d have to push away those thoughts or become suicidally regretful.
Do you believe in free will btw? Or is this also part of the equation in your thinking, that people don’t really make any decisions so how can we judge them?
Sorry im struggling to understand whatever points youre trying to make.
if people tried to understand the motivations of others,
This is essentially my qualifier for “good”.
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 puts their own interests above those of everyone else, this is a good indication of questionable character.
This you?
This is why everyone hates moral philosophy professors
Ha! In a few ways, yes.
In addition to some of the other criteria mentioned, some other indicators of a bad person are:
- Using bad-faith argument techniques, such as tone policing
- Endorsing or demanding conformity for conformity’s sake
