Concluding that an entire group of people (without exception) are "bad guys" or "not good" seems rather reductionistic of you. It seems like you enjoy using labels to reduce people to the ideas you've attached to them.
I agree with the points 'in theory,' but I would never make the leap to concluding that a single person (let alone all people in a group) is "good" or "bad" based on association and career choice. I think that seeing people as fixed good guys and bad guys is the kind of thinking that keeps us tangled up in fruitless arguments and general division.
Building an argument on factual statements about a group of people then following it up with a black-and-white generalization as a conclusion is like baking a delicious cake and frosting it with shit.
P.S. I'm not trying to start anything, just giving you my honest unfiltered reaction because I respect you.
The "but not all cops are bad" argument is addressed in the copsucker article dullhawk linked to above.
I saw that, but it didn't address the idea of labeling people as "good" and "bad." It also makes way too many assumptions about people for me to follow.
He also admits he can't understand why anyone would join the police force in its current state. That doesn't mean there are absolutely no reasonable good intentions that would lead a person to willingly join the force. For example, some people believe they can be the change they want to see in the world, and they might apply this to the police.
I guess what I'm saying is if we're talking about good and bad people, we need to define what we mean by this. I'm not convinced there is such a thing as a good or bad person.
If joining a specific group is committing to attacking strangers on the orders of other strangers, then you've chosen to do a bad thing.
I don't think it makes you evil, necessarily, you might think you're a good guy, but intentions aren't outcomes.
We're not taking the person's perspective into account when we insist on the perspective in which police are legalized bullies. If we're going to judge an entire group of people, we should at least realize they all have different beliefs and perspectives and intentions, at least some of which are benevolent.
Also, the way we're talking about it makes it seem like there is no yang to the yin of the current system. Is it 100% bully/mob/evil? Are there 0% situations handled well? 0% citizens effectively protected?
What exactly are we asking for when talking about how bad the current system is? What solutions are we proposing?
I wish he was wrong, but I don't have the luxury of deciding what's true.
Yes, you do choose what is true to the degree that you choose your perspective. If you're not choosing your perspective, whose perspective are you using? Whose perspectives are you ignoring?
Points 1, 2, and 3 are sound. The conclusion, "there are no good cops," is a large leap to a generalized opinion. It disregards other perspectives and possibilities. It is a useless conclusion, too. It serves only to divide people further. It also seems to depend on a concept of a "good person." Otherwise, any cop who plays well the role of a cop is a "good cop."
I believe truth is objective and knowable.
The premises support the conclusion.
I'm very fond of several cops, but I refuse to be wrong or silent just because the truth is unpalatable.
I agree, truth is objective, but it is only knowable via perspectives. Perspectives are subjective. We tend to stick to one perspective, but the more perspectives you can understand, the larger the foundation of understanding you can build for yourself. This network of perspectives provides a form of error correction. It allows for a more complete view of the truth than a single perspective.
The claim "there are no good cops" is not objective because "good cops" is not objective, just as "good person" is not objective. Therefore, the conclusion is an opinion and cannot possibly be a statement of fact.
Do you believe there can be good rapists? Rapists are, after all, just a group. A group based on one common behavior. Just as are cops.
I don't believe we can objectively, accurately label people as "good" or "bad," so your question has as little meaning as the conclusion I'm challenging.
People can certainly be objectively, accurately, labeled as "good" or "bad" based solely on their actions.
Person A rapes Person B. Person A is a BAD PERSON.
By extension Person A is bad because they raped.
Therefore Rapists are bad. Rapists by extension of their acts are bad people.
Can "good people" do "bad" actions? Does that make them "bad people"?
Can "bad people" do "good" actions? Does that make them "good people"?
Can "good people" become "bad people"? Can "bad people" become "good people"? If so, what is the purpose of putting these labels on people?
"Good people" and "bad people" are not objective concepts, so no argument built on them can be objectively decided.
People are people. Actions are actions. We may decide any person or action is "good" or "bad," but the claim that these are objective concepts that can be proven logically is the fallacy I'm trying to expose.
The argument is that Rapist are bad people by extension of their bad acts and that's not subjective or interpretive, it's truth.
Can good people rape? Yes, but then they aren't good people anymore, the act of raping makes them a bad person. So yes, by extension of their actions, solely because of their actions that makes them bad people
Can bad people do good? Yes, but that doesn't mean they are good people because they have already been labeled bad and good acts no matter how grand or how many don't invalidate bad acts. People chose, they chose to redeem themselves, so by their actions they can become good people again, a rapist can redeem himself by seeking forgiveness. Without seeking forgiveness, it doesn't matter if they do good, by extension of their not seeking to correct their bad acts, they are bad. Because good actions don't need correcting, because they are correct to begin with good people are people that chose correct actions.
The purpose of putting these labels to people is to express that they chose to be bad. The purpose is to express their choices. If a person chooses to dig a trench he is a trench digger. If a person chose to cut a tree down he is a lumberjack, if a person chooses to build a wooden frame house he is a carpenter, should he chose to build a stone house he is a mason, a brick house makes him a brick layer, and a person that chose to rape other is labeled a rapist. Labels of all kinds come with the actions of the people, not their motivations, no label will exist to express motivations, or good intention, only outcome or actions. Should the trench digger chose to dig a trench that helps drain a flooded area for others, he's a good person, should he chose to dig a trench to flood an area that others live in, he is a bad person. Should he chose to dig a trench for himself he's simply a trench digger. Should a carpenter chose to skimp on material or labor while he's building a house for someone else, he chose to do bad because of negligence. He is a bad person. Should he chose to do the same when he's building a house for himself, he's simply a negligent person. Should other suffer because they visit his shoddy house and it collapses on them, he is a bad person. Should a lumberjack chose to cut a tree that destroys other's property or worse, he is a bad person. Should he destroy his own property or his own well being, he is a negligent person. Labels distinguish good from bad, negligent from diligent. That's why we label actions and people based on their actions, as there aren't actions without people, there's only nature. At the end, actions worthy of labels such as diligent, good, excellent, great, awesome, impressive, are labeled to express acceptance, approval and in turn inspire others to chose such things.
Equally bad actions and by extension bad people are necessary to express undesirable and shunned, behavior derision.
I disagree. First actions define the character. Also, actions like truth are objective. The color black is black, because this helps us communicate ideas and facts, and so a good act is correct,a bad act is wrong, negligence is wrong, these things are agreed upon constructs and because of that they help us communicate objectively and express objective truth.
They themselves may be objective. What is subjective are our interpretations of actions and perspectives of truth. Therefore, any label applied to a person ("good" or "bad") is applied subjectively.
Labels are applied objectively because actions in their outcomes are objective and don't require interpretation, as such a good action denotes correct behavior, or ethical, moral behavior, and in contrast a bad action (lying, cheating, stealing, initiating violence, rape, murder) denotes wrong behavior. Where (why and how) does interpretation play a part in labeling people based on their behavior?
If they don't require interpretation, who's applying the label? Who's deciding what's "good" and what's "bad"? Who decides what is "correct" or "ethical" or "moral"? To act on these concepts, they must be interpreted.
Whoever does the labeling does the interpretation.
That's a moot point, what's the point that things can be interpreted and misconstrued in whichever direction? Is that why we should not label people? Because these things can be interpreted? That's hardly an argument, or refuting the logic of: Bad actions define Bad character.
I'm not speaking against the use of labels to communicate or conceptualize. I'm speaking against the dependency on labels. I actually just explained this in another thread on this post, so I'm kinda tired of talking about it. But basically, I'm just trying to encourage people to continue questioning their beliefs, even when it comes to their principles and their labels. When we get too sure of ourselves, our egos tend to take over and hijack our best intentions.
Well, if you are willing to consider that some rapists are good, I can see why you can't conclude all cops are bad.
But, it's not so much about the person as the acts they engage in. If the preponderance of a person's acts are evil (involve violating people who don't deserve to be violated at this moment) then I will call the person out. They can change instantly by refusing to engage in those acts one moment longer. If they won't do that...
To conclude that from what I said, you must have misunderstood.
My premise is that there are no "good people" or "bad people." I have tried to say it differently every reply in this whole thread, but I'm running out of ways to say it. No one has yet addressed that point.
We are in agreement that the "bad" actions are indeed "bad" or undesirable to us.
What we seem to disagree about is whether or not people should be considered "good" and "bad" people.
The concept seems deeply flawed to me, and it seems to lead to a powerless mindset in which people are trapped in their flaws, unable to rise above them or improve themselves. This mindset is also known as "being judgemental."
Practicing this tends to inwardly blind people to the very things they outwardly judge other people for. This tends to lead to hypocrisy. It's a downward spiral into a tangle of minutiae.
If you're self-aware enough to recognize your hypocrisy when it occurs, you'll still end up fighting yourself until you learn to to let it go. Only when you stop hating will you stop reflecting what you hate.
If we regard our similarities as primary and our differences as secondary, we can eliminate the "us vs. them" way of interacting with each other. When we get to the point where we all know we're all connected and are essentially one organism, we can start acting like one, even while maintaining our individual uniqueness of perspective and personality.
OK, yes, I agree that "good" and "bad" are actions or behaviors, not people.
Where I differ is that I believe that if a person has a habit of committing bad actions, that person becomes tainted by their behavior and can be said to be a bad person. Just a few bad acts, committed repeatedly, or even one bad act which is bad enough, can make any good acts irrelevant.
A person who continues to rape or police is a bad person.
BUT, as I said before, he can change that in a heartbeat by turning from committing those bad acts and refusing to act that way ever again.
If he won't do that, he is still a bad person. A person you can expect more violating behavior from. A person you would be foolish to trust. You may not want to call him a bad person, but you better adjust your behavior toward him, or you will regret it.