Why be good?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Actually, my assumption was not that you are malicious, but taking your words at face value when I called you amoral. Perhaps if you read closer you wouldn't draw these inapt conclusions?

Also, how is it you can call someone a "terrible human being" when you reject the precepts of morality?

You've overstated my maliciousness a few times (or maybe I'm misattributing someone else's statements to you).

You laid the charge. You can go back through this thread and quote my posts which support it.

 

Maybe you are hung up on my willingness to kill and eat Rhythms family in a post apocalyptic kill or be killed scenario.  I think, behavior wise, I'm fairly in line with most, I just talk/think about it a lot differently.  

Actually, I wasn't paying any attention to that conversation at all. I was only addressing the points that you raised regarding your proclivity for seeing people as a means to an end.

As for calling someone a terrible human being, the standard exists.

What standard? You yourself reject moral claims. What is your standard for calling someone "terrible"? Perhaps a person is "terrible" if they refuse to let you use them? Perhaps a person is terrible if they harm you directly?

You have some basis for judgement, right? Lay it out.

 My interest in letting the standard dictate my behavior doesn't change the existing of the standard.  You guys have your community here, and maybe he's the loveable racist grandma character of the forum.  I dunno why people seem okay with his over-the-top rage and hatefulness.

Setting aside for the moment that he and I have disagreed vociferously on his bigotry towards Muslims, the fact is that you're appealing to some nebulous "standard" in supporting your judgement, but you're not saying what that standard is. Certainly it has a moral dimension, otherwise you wouldn't be squirming so much when the question is put to you.

So I'm going to put the question to you again, with the expectation that this time you will provide a direct answer: How can you judge anyone terrible when you reject morality?

---

For sure, my calling someone a terrible human being has no impact.  Nothing is important because I say it.  The only thing that would make it relevant is its accuracy.    

And what is your metric for accuracy? What is your yardstick? And how can an amoralist have any yardstick at all to make such a pronouncement?

I submit that you haven't thought your position out in nearly the detail required for this discussion. You're busy castigating someone else for their behavior even as you state that the only rule of thumb for your behavior is how things benefit you. The only reconciliation of this contradiction is that you think another person is terrible because they will not allow you to use them.