Oh, I was taking an even more radical stance: arguing that even things like murder are not inherently bad.
If you're going to be arguing for changes to the way society treats groups of people, you run into a problem: there is no single logical principle which everyone will agree on for deciding what changes should be made. People are going to disagree on what is wrong and right when it comes to interacting with other people. A sociopathic serial killer may argue that people like himself (or herself) should be treated with respect and admiration. Hard-line fundamentalist Christians may argue that homosexuality is a sin and should not be tolerated in a civilised country.
Most arguments in this area are going to boil down to "I have different fundamental values from that person"; at which point society has to decide which values it accepts and which it does not. And it's far from a binary accept/reject decision, too - traits like greed are generally unpunished by the law but frowned upon by individuals in many social groups.
there are issues with any attempt to divide the world into good and bad people. But some are much worse than others!
Sure, but people are still going to disagree about which are better and which are worse! It is impossible to please everyone and (I think) unwise to even attempt to do so. Choosing who gets to be unhappy is necessarily difficult and controversial.
(Hm. This still feels kind of waffley-without-a-point. For which I apologise.)
no subject
If you're going to be arguing for changes to the way society treats groups of people, you run into a problem: there is no single logical principle which everyone will agree on for deciding what changes should be made. People are going to disagree on what is wrong and right when it comes to interacting with other people. A sociopathic serial killer may argue that people like himself (or herself) should be treated with respect and admiration. Hard-line fundamentalist Christians may argue that homosexuality is a sin and should not be tolerated in a civilised country.
Most arguments in this area are going to boil down to "I have different fundamental values from that person"; at which point society has to decide which values it accepts and which it does not. And it's far from a binary accept/reject decision, too - traits like greed are generally unpunished by the law but frowned upon by individuals in many social groups.
there are issues with any attempt to divide the world into good and bad people. But some are much worse than others!
Sure, but people are still going to disagree about which are better and which are worse! It is impossible to please everyone and (I think) unwise to even attempt to do so. Choosing who gets to be unhappy is necessarily difficult and controversial.
(Hm. This still feels kind of waffley-without-a-point. For which I apologise.)