I would argue that I am thinking in absolute terms.
Your very example is of a bad action. I am not arguing that a person not be responsible for their actions. But that one action does not a person make.
Objects - including people - are NOT inherently good or bad.
A tree propping up a book is not good or bad. A person reading a book is not good or bad.
When that person puts down their book and starts "ordering bombs at a school" then badness is perceived.
After a day of ordering bombs that same person may then go volunteer at a soup kitchen for the homeless in the evening. Or more likely go home, be kind to their children and tuck them in at night.
The person themselves are not inherently bad. Some of their actions are.
When time comes to judge the person you may well indeed say they should be removed from society because on the whole their actions balance for the worse (responsibility for their actions) AND/OR they are likely to continue to do so (rehabilitation for their behaviour). And that is fair.
But they are not inherently bad simply for existing.
This viewpoint means that you are perfectly allowed to distance yourself from others with the viewpoint they are not worth interacting with. Alternately, you are also allowed to keep interacting with them knowing well the cost of the bad vs the benefit of the good.
Example, you may well never wish to interact with the general ever again. But a fellow prison inmate may decide it is worth playing chess with him rather than not. And I would judge that prison inmates actions as being ok.
This is thinking in absolute terms. But at a level of detail most people prefer not to engage, either through lack of capability, capacity or desire.
I think you are confusing a non-thinking tree with a human with will and planned actions.
I understand where your stoic ideas come from but I just disagree. They imply just observing randomness instead of actively trying to make society better. But if you will, I consider a person with a negative society balance through their actions bad. I guess the definition strikes a nerve. I don't get why people get triggered though. A green tree is a green tree, a bad person is a bad person (through the definition.
I think we largely agree but I am arguing points of detail.
By labelling a person "bad" - as a cause of one action - the natural inclination is to think everything they do is bad - the notion of badness flowing from person -> action.
I am simply arguing that should flow in reverse. If a person's actions cause more harm than good, then on balance, they are "bad" - the notion of badness flowing from action -> person. But one - or even a series - of bad actions does not make a bad person if they have a balance of actions in the positive.
It makes the difference between Cancel Culture and as treating people as flawed humans who may or may not learn over time.
Sure, some people deserve to be shunned by society, on the whole their actions in the past and likely trend for the future are that bad. But societal shunning is a powerful thing. Are we going to shun people who said something anti-gay in the 60's despite their change in attitude since? This is a path to serious social chilling.
Your very example is of a bad action. I am not arguing that a person not be responsible for their actions. But that one action does not a person make.
Objects - including people - are NOT inherently good or bad.
A tree propping up a book is not good or bad. A person reading a book is not good or bad.
When that person puts down their book and starts "ordering bombs at a school" then badness is perceived.
After a day of ordering bombs that same person may then go volunteer at a soup kitchen for the homeless in the evening. Or more likely go home, be kind to their children and tuck them in at night.
The person themselves are not inherently bad. Some of their actions are.
When time comes to judge the person you may well indeed say they should be removed from society because on the whole their actions balance for the worse (responsibility for their actions) AND/OR they are likely to continue to do so (rehabilitation for their behaviour). And that is fair.
But they are not inherently bad simply for existing.
This viewpoint means that you are perfectly allowed to distance yourself from others with the viewpoint they are not worth interacting with. Alternately, you are also allowed to keep interacting with them knowing well the cost of the bad vs the benefit of the good.
Example, you may well never wish to interact with the general ever again. But a fellow prison inmate may decide it is worth playing chess with him rather than not. And I would judge that prison inmates actions as being ok.
This is thinking in absolute terms. But at a level of detail most people prefer not to engage, either through lack of capability, capacity or desire.