Plenty of monsters with support systems, plenty of decent people who have been beaten down by life and left to fend on their own.
Plot twist: op was ironic, meaning that with a large enough support network, even mosters can manipulate the public opinion to appear as decent people, while without such network, even decent people can be unjustly flagged as monsters and will be helpless to prove their innocence
I wasn’t ironic but you make a very important point: “even mosters can manipulate the public opinion to appear as decent people,”
This, or, “monsters” can manipulate the public to the point that what their opinion of what is “good” is accepted as a fact. See: religious extremism. See: fucking TRUMP.
Which then leads to: “even decent people can be unjustly flagged as monsters and will be helpless to prove their innocence”
A person cannot control their reputation, but they can control whether it’s true or not.
‘Plenty of monsters with support systems’ - so were they inherently monsters? If yes, then they couldn’t help it, like a polar bear can’t help hunting. We don’t call polar bears ‘monsters.’ We call them predators, which is what humans become when their ‘support’ teaches them cruelty, not care.
‘Plenty of decent people beaten down by life’ - same logic. No inherent goodness, just luck: someone, somewhere, showed them ‘don’t be cruel’ before it was too late.
I don’t believe in inherent good or evil.
You don’t have to be shown. All it takes to be a good person is empathy. All it takes to be a bad one is its lack.
That statement dangerously oversimplifies human behavior and stigmatizes neurodivergent individuals, particularly those on the autism spectrum, who may experience empathy differently but are not inherently “bad.”
They may experience it differently, but if they can act on it, they will be good people. Without being able to act on empathy, no matter how you perceive it, you cannot be good, and refusing to act with empathy towards people and other lives on earth is bad.
So if someone literally cannot “act” in some way, you get to decide if they are good or evil?
🤷♂️ Yeah, kinda. What metric are you using?
First I can look at my own values and discover that I happen to value human well-being. I like it when people are happy, healthy and free of suffering. It doesn’t make me a “virtuous” person, I’m a human too so I could be purely guided by self-interest.
Then I can look at science and reason and conclude that by those things, I can generally figure out what kind of things impact human well-being and how.
Then I can look at someone’s behavior and conclude that it’s either beneficial or detrimental to human well-being.
Then I can look at science and reason again to find out how to address that behavior in order to reduce (or even entirely prevent) harm.
I don’t need a moral framework for any of that, and I certainly don’t need to judge people as essentially “good” or “evil”.
This is close to the “if people were educated they wouldn’t be evil” fallacy, as if people like Henry Kissinger didn’t exist, lol.
No, as Hume brilliantly pointed out: shoulds and ares are fundamentally disconnected. You can be extremely smart and knowledgeable about the world and still conduct yourself viciously (at times, monstrously so). What’s the name of that physically disabled physicist that cheated on his wife and was just chilling with/close to Epstein?
Anyway, sticking more to the topic at hand: the only real difference between a moral person and a monster is that the former 1) believes that, for every occasion and decision, some acts are visibly, objectively more moral than others; 2) believes they should always privilege righteousness before vice, and do the moral thing. That’s it. One of my closest male friends is literally illiterate and he’s an excellent dad who chooses virtue regularly, my dad was a lawyer and that didn’t stop him from being abusive to his family and from cheating on his wife, lol.
So no, stop it, that’s not how it works. Good people are good because they decide to be good (which is easy to see, you don’t need degrees, you don’t even need to know how to read or write!), every day, and even when they slip they still know that they DID slip, they don’t just rationalize their mistake as something virtuous (because they believe in objective morality and etc etc.).
You’re mixing up two things: knowing right from wrong and having the capacity to act on it. Hume’s right: you CAN be brilliant and still vicious. But that’s not an argument for inherent morality; it’s proof that knowledge alone doesn’t shape behavior. Your literate friend ‘chooses virtue’ because he can. His life gave him stability, models, and the luxury of slip-ups. Your dad, the lawyer who cheated? He had power without consequences, which is its own kind of support system: one that rewards harm. The difference isn’t ‘moral vs. monster.’ It’s who had the tools to practice what they preached. and who didn’t. You’re arguing that ‘good people’ are the ones who succeed at morality. I’m saying morality is a skill, and skills require resources. No resources? No skill. Just survival.
He was raised in the streets and used to sell drugs, which is why he ended up in jail for 7 years. To this day, he doesn’t know his mom or dad. The man had no support. Fair enough, “morality is a skill” as in the more you choose right over wrong, the easier it gets, it becomes a part of your identity you’re proud of, but I don’t think it requires resources the way you see it. Also, people can be and have been self-sacrificial, even in the absence of resources. The poorest people are the ones that give more to charity, there’s more union and prosociality in Gaza amongst the bombs than in any American neighborhood… Idk man, I’m not buying this. I think that it’s a variable that can affect your decision making, especially if your moral framework is flimsy, but not the main variable behind moral decision making.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point, TBF.
You’re seeing a “self” or an “identity” where there are only conditions. My point is that your friend didn’t “choose” virtue in a vacuum; he finally encountered conditions - perhaps a moment of stability or a specific mentor - where pro-social behavior wasn’t actively punished by his environment, or it was even rewarded in ways that aren’t immediately obvious.
In places like Gaza, prosociality isn’t a miracle of “free will”; it’s a survival requirement. When the external world is hostile, the internal community must be hyper-cooperative to survive. That is a reinforced behavior.
If you put a “good” person in a system that rewards predation and punishes kindness with death or starvation, that “virtuous identity” eventually collapses into survival. We aren’t essentially “good” or “bad”, we are reflections of the resources, safety, and reinforcements available to us. Character is just the name we give to a long chain of causes and conditions that happened to go right.
The worst monsters are made by power. Power breeds apathy and boredom, and provides protection.
power yields nothing without force.
force is the not just the tip but the spear itself.
This is not as insightful as ya think.
Idk I’m a shit person and I have a great support network. Honestly they’re the only reason I haven’t killed myself yet.
I think there’s a thin line between monster and hero. Like most human behaviors, I think the divide is much smaller than we might like to think.
Personally, I think we just have weird brains that tend to want to explain everything, even if it there may not be one. And we like to fill in those gaps with imagination, rather than accept ignorance. I forget the name of this scientific fallacy.
Anyways nice showerthought
First of all, please don’t kill yourself.
Second, if you think you’re a shit person and want to kill yourself… how are you a shit person? I mean I’m merely assuming here that you think you’re shit because maybe you sometimes do shitty things, and because of that you should kys. If you at least recognize that you can do harmful things, you aren’t irredeemable, you can start taking steps to avoid doing that.
Everybody does shitty things sometimes, some more than others. I don’t think anyone deserves death but in terms of just shittiness, people who don’t even recognize that in themselves are way more unpleasant to be around. And if you have a great support network, maybe they don’t entirely agree with your self-assessment.
What is a decent human to you?
What is a monster?Indeed.
Indeed what? That’s not an answer.
Do you want me to regurgitate my views on “decent person” or a “monster”?
Think for yourself. Starting with questioning if such categorizations are even useful or justified.
Lol it’s your post, so yes
Have fun reading that wikipedia article. My OP is specifically an argument against essentialism.
I think that a support network can help people be better. But that is relative to the reality of the support network. Like … be better what exactly ?
Isolation and solitude cannot socialize a being. It is antithetical to socialization.
Yeah so many underprivleged rich assholes who got no support throughout their life. musk, trump, kennedy, etc. all just victims of an unfair system. they are not truly monsters.
And what if they had been surrounded by people who actually care about human well-being? have you seen Muskrat’s mom lol
Even the legitimately underprivileged do things that no amount of poverty and trauma can explain away. I don’t think there’s anything that could get me to rape and murder children, yet there are many that have done both.
Yeah I don’t think I could ever understand certain actions under any circumstance.
