So you end up with this attempt to construct a sort of neutral ethics in which the only moral judgment is whether a person is Inherently Evil, but also you can't ever make that judgement because it would be too mean.

Show Post

And then the sort of irony is that you get to this point and say "well we shouldn't say that someone's bad actions make them ontologically bad" -- you've got this ontological framework but it's muddied in such a way that you still feel guilty and hesitant about saying someone is Bad

Show Post

(and like, somewhat reasonably! It's reasonable to hesitate over calling someone who was a *shitty parent* a *Bad Person*, who therefore *Deserves Suffering* -- but that's you! You decided that that's how morality had to work, I didn't say to judge people like that!)

Show Post

But if the point is to tease out whether than the parent is Good or Bad -- and therefore whether they *deserve* to *feel bad* -- then there's no room for this kind of admixture. The only thing you can say is, "were their bad actions bad enough that we can conclusively say that they're a bad person."

Show Post

You see the thing is that we view morality as *ontological*, rather than consequentialist. You are judging the virtue of the actions based on their consequences; you have to use those actions to judge whether a person is Good or Bad.

Show Post