Name one objectively bad person

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Before you answer, can you name one objectively good person? You probably cannot. Whether what you do is good or not is highly subjective.

So what about racism... rape, genocide, child molesters? Are they not objectively bad? I think they are.

So what we're getting at is that there are indeed objectively bad people ..could that mean that there could be a standard for objective good as well but we just don't know it yet?...and most of all...could this mean there indeed is an objective morality after all?

[Losty]

I'd say bad/good cannot be objective. These are always subjective IMO

[Joods]

Before you answer, can you name one objectively good person? You probably cannot. Whether what you do is good or not is highly subjective.

So what about racism... rape, genocide, child molesters? Are they not objectively bad? I think they are.

So what we're getting at is that there are indeed objectively bad people ..could that mean that there could be a standard for objective good as well but we just don't know it yet?...and most of all...could this mean there indeed is an objective morality after all?

I sure can name one objectively good person. 

My daughter Jordan. She has down syndrome and doesn't give a shit about skin color or being mean to someone or doing harm or anything like that. She's just an all around good, decent, kind person. And she gives out free hugs too. Not a mean bone in her body. 

One objectively bad person: The Orange Shit Gibbon currently serving as POTUS.

[FatAndFaithless]

I've never liked summing up people in terms of 'good' or 'bad' or 'evil', because that's a gross oversimplification of someone's entire character and life actions.

It reminds me of Ken Ham's line of reasoning when it comes to lying: if you have ever told a lie once in your life, you are now known as 'a liar' according to him. Identifying someone as a 'bad person' because they have done some bad things in their life is equally as simplistic, as it overlooks any good things they've done (and vice versa).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Bad Person: H. H. Holmes.

Good Person: Thích Nhất Hạnh

[The Grand Nudger]

Before you answer, can you name one objectively good person? You probably cannot. Whether what you do is good or not is highly subjective.

So what about racism... rape, genocide, child molesters? Are they not objectively bad? I think they are.

So what we're getting at is that there are indeed objectively bad people ..could that mean that there could be a standard for objective good as well but we just don't know it yet?...and most of all...could this mean there indeed is an objective morality after all?

That wouldn't be much of a revelation to objective moral theorists.

[Minimalist]

I'll give it a go.




I cannot think of a single redeeming quality that this piece of shit has.

[Mr.Obvious]

Pool, if we were to say 'rape is subjectively bad', what would it lose in strength?
Whether we deem something bad or good is based on the value we give to it.
And just about everybody deems rape bad, in our cultures. Anyone raped surely deem it bad, in their experience.
What would some underlying core 'truth' beyond human understanding matter if we deem it wrong and judge, condone and punish it out of our viewpoint that it is 'bad'?
If our understanding leads our subjective minds to concider it wrong, the hypothetical standard beyond our understanding that we can't 'know' doesn't matter because we still think its wrong.
Concider it like this: What if there was an objective moral standard and it turned out that according to that objective morality rape would be fine, as creeded by the hypothetical God that embodies that morality and 'perfection'. Would you then start raping? I'd have trouble with that, because I would subjectively still think rape is wrong.

[The Grand Nudger]

While I'm not sure why an objective morality would be beyond human understanding, the point of practicality is spot on.  Similarly, a moral proposition taken to be a subjective proposition loses all of it's strength as a proposition which informs us of truth...but none of it;s strength as the opinion which informs us as to what action we should take if some asshole does x.

The drive, imo, in finding an objective morality is immensely helpful though. It would give us a means to seperate those things that were bad because of some objective fact..and those things that are only taken to be bad by a certain subset of people. We punish people based on those judgements. Think of chemical castration or imprisonment for gays. It might be nice to find out what terrible things were doing to people...just because we have an opinion. The perils of a subjective morality are very...very...very well expressed in human history, and particularly in our various religions.

[brewer]

jesus? mohammed? abraham? moses? j smith? lr hubbard? zoroastor? .........