Most people have a confused notion of what a “good person” is. According to this notion, being a “good person” requires having properties X, Y, and Z. Well, it turns out that no one, or nearly no one, has properties X&Y&Z, and also couldn’t achieve them quickly even with effort. Therefore, no one is a “good person” by that definition.
What sorts of X, Y, and Z do you have in mind? It is hard to tell whether what you’re saying here is sensible, without a bit more concreteness…
I also want to clarify “some behavior is unethical and also hard to stop”. What I mean here is that a lot of behavior is, judged for itself, unethical, in the sense that it’s bad for non-zero-sum coordination, and also that it’s hard to change one’s overall behavioral pattern to behave ethically with consistency. Which doesn’t at all imply that people who haven’t already done this are “bad people”, it just means they still take actions that are bad for non-zero-sum coordination.
Same question as above: what sorts of behavior do you have in mind, when you say this?
Also, and orthogonally to the above question: you appear to be implying (correct me if I’m misunderstanding you) that “sometimes does unethical things” implies “bad person” (either in your morality, or in the morality you impute to “most people”, or both). But this implication seems, to me, neither to hold “in truth” (that is, in anything that seems to me to be a correct morality) nor to be held as true by most people.
After all, if it were not as I say, then there would be no such notion as the morally imperfect, yet good, person! Now, it is true that, e.g., Christianity famously divides the world into saints and sinners, yet even most Christians—when they are reasoning in an everyday fashion about people they interact with, rather than reciting Sunday-school lessons—have no trouble at all thinking of people as being flawed but good.
There is, of course, also the matter that the implication of “behavior is ‘bad for non-zero-sum coordination’ → behavior is unethical” seems rather dubious, at best… but I cannot speak with any certainty on this point without seeing some examples of just what kinds of behaviors you’re talking about.
What sorts of X, Y, and Z do you have in mind? It is hard to tell whether what you’re saying here is sensible, without a bit more concreteness…
Same question as above: what sorts of behavior do you have in mind, when you say this?
Also, and orthogonally to the above question: you appear to be implying (correct me if I’m misunderstanding you) that “sometimes does unethical things” implies “bad person” (either in your morality, or in the morality you impute to “most people”, or both). But this implication seems, to me, neither to hold “in truth” (that is, in anything that seems to me to be a correct morality) nor to be held as true by most people.
After all, if it were not as I say, then there would be no such notion as the morally imperfect, yet good, person! Now, it is true that, e.g., Christianity famously divides the world into saints and sinners, yet even most Christians—when they are reasoning in an everyday fashion about people they interact with, rather than reciting Sunday-school lessons—have no trouble at all thinking of people as being flawed but good.
There is, of course, also the matter that the implication of “behavior is ‘bad for non-zero-sum coordination’ → behavior is unethical” seems rather dubious, at best… but I cannot speak with any certainty on this point without seeing some examples of just what kinds of behaviors you’re talking about.