Why be good?

[henryp]

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.

I'm not following.  I would judge myself to be not that great a person according to society as well.  Society's standards aren't based on my behavior.  I believe the post was relating the way I was being judged to some of the groups habit of being mean to theists.  I found it a bit hypocritical, or more interestingly that maybe people just think they think one way, but based on their behavior probably think another without realizing it.  I believe the example I used later was a Catholic who doesn't go to church probably doesn't really believe in Catholicism, they just haven't realized it.  I find a lot of people's behavior fits pretty well with what I describe for myself.  

The part with Minimalist, was highlighting something you said at the end.  I was differentiating specifically between "how things benefit me" vs. "being aggressively hateful."  Someone said I couldn't be their facebook friend, and I was trying to say I'm not THAT evil pointing out that I am not malicious.  Perhaps that's a caveat of my thinking that was skipped over.  All things being equal, I'd just assume everyone be happy.  An easy example is Gay Marriage.  I don't care if gay people get married.  I've voted on it, and I voted in support of it, because what do I care?  If the vote loses, oh well.  I think it's dumb for people to oppose it, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

As has been said, there is a lot of overlap in what's 'good' for society and what's good for the individual.  That's, in my theory, why so many people might be mistaking their motivations for altruistic rather than self-centered.  

What else...Ah, judging people.  From my selfish perspective, Minimalist is bad to me because the caustic attitude is off-putting and creates a bad environment for discussion, which is why I'm here.  I'm also not a fan of bigotry and mean-spiritedness in general as I think they are bad for the society that I have to live in.  

On the flipside, from his perspective, he isn't obligated to give a fuck if I don't like his attitude.  If shitting on theists makes him happy, keep on shitting on those theists.  He has no reason to be invested in my experience using this forum.  I'm just some asshole, afterall.

But I don't think I would use my perspective in talking to people who don't share my perspective.  I'd try to use a more universal yardstick, that they would relate to.  Especially in this case when it was in reference to the judgement being passed by someone else.

So in the end, I can think you're terrible with my own 'selfish' yardstick, and societal yardstick.  But I don't think you should have to care. 

It's pretty convoluted.  You're definitely right that I haven't thought out my position fully.  May never, who knows.  It is not a mistake that my posts ramble all over the place. Half this stuff I think for the first time as I'm typing it.  That's why I'm here.  If I had it all figured out, I'd be thinking about something else.  For me, this isn't about trying to relive the glory years of junior high debate club.  I'm just interested in gaining information.