I am not quite sure how this relates to the OP, but I will answer the questions and respond and see where we get. Sure, I know people I think are good. I agree that everyone does some good, by most criteria for the use of that term.
To me ‘right’ is a value consideration.
Further I can’t see people not thinking about consequences. I do know that there are a lot of customs. IOW habits that people simply do. But all of us are presented with situations where we must and do think of the consequences. We decide to intervene or not. They are lots of gray areas in life and complicated circumstances, ones that mean we must go beyond habit. we have to decide which habit to apply. And this need not be some rare or catastrophic event.
Every human I have ever met is to some degree a utilitarian. They may have rules, but many situations allow for one to apply the rules or not break them and still one must decide what the consequences are and for how many or at least for oneself and usually loved ones.
Sure.
I have liked a few people who did not like me, but over time it becomes untenable.
So how does this relate to the issue of judging people on what they do as opposed to what they are - how they feel to be around, their vibe, etc.?
I’ll give an example. Imagine if a whole country focused allot of money and scientists into genetics technologies, with the goal of making a super human and curing all genetic disease. That is an example of a national goal. But if it was so important and advertised, that allot of the population thought highly of it, I would consider it a national life purpose as well. Putting a man on the moon was a national goal, but it was not very morally significant. Curing all disease is a more difficult goal, but more meaningful. World war 2 had some national goal elements to it. Everyone was thinking about it, and a large percent of the population and money went into it. But that type of mobilization isn’t happening the same way for curing all disease, even though I wish it was. These are just some examples of what I’m trying to say. Hopefully you understand it.
Again, I find responses to other people to be subjective.
Hope you don’t mind that I’m using your OP to answer, in part, your response to me.
I agree–moral ‘right’ is a value judgement. I tried to say that (above), only I said it in my own words. I tried to connect to your OP when I first read it, but I didn’t understand what you were getting at, so I didn’t reply until I thought I did; that is, how we respond to people. Now I think you’re talking about value ethics. Is my understanding correct this time?
It’s as if you’ve taken the words of your OP and turned them inside out, going from being an observer to being the observed, while I’m still back being an observer, trying to understand why I should worry about the consequences of not wanting to be around people who give off bad vibes. I hope you understand some of my confusion.
Sure, it’s a feeling response. But if one notices that one’s feeling responses are good guides, it’s good to follow them. You can show films to people of couples sitting and talking to each other. I mean, just a few seconds. And those people, even untrained ones, will be able to use their subjective feel of watching the couple to predict how long the couple will last miles above chance. (this is from Gladwell’s Blink). This has actually been tested.
Of course people can be bad at this, overestimate their skills, have prejudiced irrelevent factors adn so on. But none of that eliminates 1) the fact that some are good at it and should be able to trust their ability and 2) that being affects other people. Even people who are good in terms of acts can detract in terms of being.
Must finish another time.
OK back again. Just a general note. I am still not fully clear on the context of your responses, even with you using my posts. could be my dimness, but i say this so we know we might write past each other.
Well, not really. At least I don’t think so. I note that much ethics discussion focuses on acts. What one does. I notice also that I react to people with a kind of moral revulsion not based on what they do, but based on their vibe. As far as I can tell some or many of these people don’t do bad things. Some, I find out do. Others lead lives where I cannot point to acts and say ‘see they are terrible’. Nevertheless I can notice effects of their presence. That people feel guilty after they have been in their presence - even though no ‘guilt tripping’ was performed by the person. Or people feel energy sucked. Or meeting go badly - even though I cannot point to an act of participation in the meeting this person made to mess it up.
The problem, as far as i can tell, is one of presence of Being, and not doing.
I would tend to call the vibe of those how I react very badly to, but who I do not find out do bad things
anti-life.
In fact some of these people are actually very ‘nice’ though it may not feel nice, and do good things, perhaps even more than other people - though this is not necessary - and still they feel bad and their presence has bad effects.
Not really. I don’t think I was considering myself one of these people or that you reacted that way.
I think I understand this. You are saying there is a lack of general consensus and momentum to furthering the general good, at least, perhaps, on issues you think are most pressing. If I go back to the original post, you mentioned chance. That we are dependent on chance - did this person happen to turn out to be good, and then like a pachinko ball they enter the game and do ill or good, so it is all a kind of moral luck. The blank is a lack of something cohering all these randomly created moral agents. Perhaps, even, if we could actually engineer good ones, this would produce more good people and then likely the kinds of nationwide common focus for good ends.
I want to try to connect this to the distinctions I was making between Goodness seen in terms of actions (only) and Goodness seen as something that is a part of being.
It seems like this parallels things now where Being is chance - some are born good or fit with their parenting such that they become good, some do not. Being is at the chance level.
