4 ms·
I think you are confusing a non-thinking tree with a human with will and planned actions. I understand where your stoic ideas come from but I just disagree. Th
by arisAlexis 4y ago
I think you are confusing a non-thinking tree with a human with will and planned actions.
I understand where your stoic ideas come from but I just disagree. They imply just observing randomness instead of actively trying to make society better. But if you will, I consider a person with a negative society balance through their actions bad. I guess the definition strikes a nerve. I don't get why people get triggered though. A green tree is a green tree, a bad person is a bad person (through the definition.
- _carbyau_ 4y agoI think we largely agree but I am arguing points of detail. By labelling a person "bad" - as a cause of one action - the natural inclination is to think everything they do is bad - the notion of badness flowing from person -> action. I am simply arguing that should flow in reverse. If a person's actions cause more harm than good, then on balance, they are "bad" - the notion of badness flowing from action -> person. But one - or even a series - of bad actions does not make a bad person if they have a balance of actions in the positive. It makes the difference between Cancel Culture and as treating people as flawed humans who may or may not learn over time. Sure, some people deserve to be shunned by society, on the whole their actions in the past and likely trend for the future are that bad. But societal shunning is a powerful thing. Are we going to shun people who said something anti-gay in the 60's despite their change in attitude since? This is a path to serious social chilling.