Give Me Attention Please

My name is Eden, I use he/it and I’m 20 now

I love snakes! My favorites are hognoses, but I’d be a green anaconda if I got to choose. This is important to my lore TM. I also love the water and being in the water!!! Swamps and marshes ily

𓆙 Art Fight 𓆙 SaSi music blog 𓆙

this song has ingrained itsself in my soul

Game #2 DONE ✌ I am doing them in reverse order it seems

This is in reference to the post you reblogged from me about the concepts of "good person (adjective)" and "good person (identity)". This is something I care about a lot (like everything when it comes to morals & ethics) so I figured I should probably clarify some things, because the belief that "good person" and "bad person" are nonsensical concepts is not new by any means and can be explained in a more precise and helpful way than a tree-lines-long Tumblr post. Also because it gives me an occasion to ramble about it.

So, the first thing is that, without meaning to turn this into a grammar lesson, the nature of the word good (as in, its grammatical classification) is "adjective". That can't change. The word good is always an adjective, what can change is its function. In "They're a good person", it describes the noun "person" (hence being described as "good (identity)").

However, you'll notice that in "They're good", "good" still refers to a person. Basically -- you can also say "They're trans", which is still an identity, because you're still applying it to the subject, which is a living, breathing human being (because "is" is a linking verb and that means that the subject and whatever is after the verb are equivalent, that's how it works linguistically). And, well, the entire point of "good and bad people isn't a valid concept" is that you can't ascribe morality to a person, only to their actions. Something about inherent goodness or evil not being a thing, people being all equal as people, one's "nature" not meaning shit, all that. What I'm trying to say is that the post isn't exactly a stellar explanation of the concept because it's phrased badly.

So, it boils down to this -- people are complex. Thought crimes are not real. Actions (can) have a moral weight but thoughts, feelings, emotions, inherently cannot. (Those concepts we can both agree on and understand.) As such, there is not a single point any one could name where someone goes from "good" to "bad" person or vice-versa. We're not in some Santa fantasy where enough bad actions put you on the naughty list, that's not how ethics work. Even if you try to put the bar somewhere according to your own compass, especially if it's about you, you'll be biased, and the weight of every single one of someone's actions can't just be worked out like a mathematical equation. Someone cannot "be" moral or immoral, they can do things that are moral or immoral. In other words, "They are being good" is possible; "They are good" is not. You can't be "bad (adjective)" either because that doesn't change the fact that it's just a roundabout way of referring to yourself as "a bad person" with just a word removed, the concept stays the same.

You can do bad things, you can take bad actions, but there is no single, specific amount of those things you can do that'll earn you the title of "bad", because you are a person (with thoughts, feelings, etc). A person is their identity, their interiority, their "self"; those, of course, guide and influence their actions, but cannot constitute a moralized object in and of themselves. You have the agency, however, of making moral and immoral decisions.

As a counter-argument to the philosophy that certain people simply have more ethical predispositions than others (and are thus "better people"), I often hear the (very noble but still moronic) take that "if it's harder for you to do good things than to do bad things, it makes you an even better person for trying harder than the rest!" which still implies that one's feelings have an incidence on the morality of their actions. This is stupid. The concepts of "bad" and "good" are just helpful enough that I don't think they should be retired entirely but they're about as useful as the word "interesting" in a literary analysis*. What do you mean by that? Is it harmful, how, to whom, to what extent? Does it do physical, emotional, financial harm? Could it have been avoided? Were there efforts or precautions taken to limit the harm done? Conversely, did it help someone, who, how much, with what? Long story short, "bad" and "good" are not concepts than can be applied to people, no matter what. A lot of people seem to be incapable or separating someone's identity from their actions, though. (Sometimes, one informs the other -- that doesn't mean that they're equivalent, because, again, people are complex. Someone could have the best theoretical thoughts on morals and still act like a dick.)

* Specifying because that's a piece of advice I received in my French education, but I've always been told not to use the word "interesting" in analyses of any kind because it doesn't mean anything. It's vague, it's a nothingburger of a word because it doesn't actually inform the reader on why it's worth pointing out. The point is to show why something is interesting, otherwise you're just saying things. Hence the comparison.

(I’m trying to work through my own thoughts and why I think things, please excuse me if I have some bad opinions, I’m capable of changing them)

You shouldn’t call someone a bad person because it’s a label that can be really easy to jump on and take too far, some people will do anything for a “us vs them” scenario. But I feel like saying people can’t be a bad person isn’t true? I was going to say “if you do more harm than good”, but that might imply that doing good things excuses you from the bad you’ve done… wait, I think I just mean “harmful” then when I say bad. But if you’re a harmful person, doesn’t that just say why you’re a bad person? You found an explanation of why they’re bad, or what we mean when we say “bad”, but it’s still… bad, right? It feels like it’s only a phrasing thing at that point. It’s just getting more specific. I get the ‘every single action cant be worked out like a math equation’ but you can still be good or bad in the present and that can be judged. WAIT thats just what you said about how *being* good or bad is possible. God okay. Huh. (so is the root of the problem literally just that by saying someone is good or bad, it says *all* their actions were good or bad too?)

Oh and arm painting to pass the time while waiting for my watercolor to dry