Asklemmy

What are the implications of an actor being bad? There’s a reason we designated them. What for?

That's kind of an interesting question. I think in this specific context, there's just a social consensus that you don't want to be bad, and the conversation was about why some people are anyway. On Lemmy, there's not much we can do beyond discuss, and I'm putting this first because it's important to remember that.

You don't necessarily have to decide a person is bad, to decide an act is.

In real life, you have legal systems which try to achieve moral goals through rules and force. In that context, it becomes a matter of incentivising and supporting good behavior (respectively called deterrence and rehabilitation in penology), and of incapacitating people who are unavoidably bad and dangerous. Retribution for it's own sake is also often cited, although that one is it's own philosophical sticky wicket.

(As an aside, it's worth noting that ideologically driven governments are a fairly recent development. There were pre-modern historical rulers that toyed with it a bit, going all the way back to Hammurabi, but largely states were brutal, blindly self-perpetuating structures. They were seen by their subjects as inevitable or divinely mandated more than as a social good)

Does this imply that human consensus drives the goodness / badness of an action and therefore the goodness / badness of the actor that brought about that action?

So, there's the "is-ought" question that comes up here. There's a strong argument that morality is relative, and only exists in the eye of the beholder.

Because Lemmy is for discussion, I default to the consensus. If there were non-humans capable of contributing to the discussion, I couldn't necessarily rely on that. Ditto for the many contested edge cases that are out there. You can still talk about logical self-consistency without getting on anyone's bandwagon, though.

Off what hook? What would being on the hook be for someone?

Off the hook of having to worry about if you're a good person on the right side of things (by whatever standard). When people dualistically sort the world into good and bad people like that, an excuse to do whatever they want is always the goal. So, I felt the need to challenge it.

I would toss bad shoes. But also I know shoes don’t think about being tossed. I guess I could extend an earlier thought and say we do whatever the consensus is to that actor. That way we maximize goodness. Though I think leaving it at that would allow us to justify some radical things.

Radical things aren't necessarily bad. A lot of what we like about present society was once very radical.

That being said, some kind of massive violent purge isn't a new idea, and there's a lot of ways it's been shown to immediately backfire. If you just mean capital punishment for some small set of egregious deviants, that's law in quite a few places already.