I truly cannot express how excited I was when I learned that someone had written a reply to my last opinion piece, and how excited I honestly still am. Before replying to the objections made against my work, I want to give a sincere thank you to my critic. I find it genuinely touching that anyone cared enough to comment on my work. Now, let’s have some fun. 

My objector, after a very kind introduction, sings the praises of the labels “good person” and “bad person.” Labels do make communication much easier. I’ll admit that, while writing my original piece, I found it difficult to write about ethics without calling people good or bad. To this objection in favor of labels, I say: Who cares? Yes, it’s harder to communicate without them, but as my objector and I agree, human nature (assuming that it exists) is not immutable. We can learn a better way that doesn’t include generalizing. I am certainly imperfect in this regard. I resorted to the term asshole-ism, which is as vague as it is stupid. It might take more effort, but that doesn’t make such communication impossible.

A bit later in his response, in a parenthetical, he provides an example of the usefulness of labels by calling a hypothetical professor bad or mean. Similar to how I meant but not properly communicate with the term asshole-ism, these judgements are not the same as calling someone a bad person. Calling someone a bad professor is a judgement on their teaching ability. My math teacher in high school was a very kind man who anyone less particular than me would call a good person. Could he teach math? Sadly, no. General goodness and specific characteristics are not the same types of judgment.

Further, calling a professor mean isn’t the same as calling them a bad person. Meanness is a description of one’s actions (mean actions, that is), not their overall moral character. Even though it’s still generalizing in a way that makes me a bit uncomfortable, I think this judgment of meanness is much closer to what I am aiming for rather than the title of bad person. My idea of asshole-ism was meant to follow a similar trajectory. I will admit that, although I find it somewhat entertaining, the term is a failure for now. I’m not arguing for the removal of all types of labels and certainly not for a suspension of any sort of judgment. The whole point of removing “good person” and “bad person” as labels is to make moral judgments more precise and clearer.

In the paragraphs that follow, my objector begins the work that I had previously decided to lay aside for a future essay. Namely, he strives to answer the question of what to do about people who think they are good people but still do bad things. In my original essay I stressed the importance of empathy but didn’t go much further. My objector calls for honest conversation as a solution. I fully agree with him. To me, communication and empathy are each necessary for the other to survive.

Later, he brings up the need for role models. I’ll admit that such figures can be important. However, the problem is that, as my objector states, “we humans aren’t perfect.” When I was a kid, my only role model was Obi-Wan Kenobi because it seemed like all the other people I met had some flaw that I didn’t want to emulate. It was a sobering moment when I found that even this fictional Jedi Master had his own flaws. My objector and I seem to agree up to this point. Where we diverge is in the need for traditional role models, an idea that I refute (though not in my original piece). So, am I without moral exemplars? No, of course not. I just don’t idolize people. I worship their admirable talents and good deeds, not the person themselves. To harken back to my original piece, one could say that I worship their actions and intentions, not a vague idea of their so-called goodness.  

My objector writes of his want for a standard of good for people to work towards. To him, it seems that this standard ought to be represented by a person. He thinks that the warping or omission of ideas of goodness makes it easier for people to stop striving to be better. I can accept this last point. Say we apply a clear and unambiguous label of goodness to some worthy person. Then, we might all have a clear moral goal to achieve. All we have to do is be like them. However, we’re bound to notice that our good person isn’t perfect. So do we lie about them? Do we take their unsavory actions as unquestionably good? My point here is that in our attempt to form a simple, un-radicalized idea of a person’s definite goodness we paradoxically invite new confusions and distortions of the idea of goodness and its definition.

My objector then argues for a shift in how we consider goodness and badness as opposed to dissolving them as labels. Maybe I’m cynical, but I don’t think this is feasible. These words, in various languages, are as old as civilization. They’ve been studied to death a thousand times. Further, each person has their own conception of them (just like any other word), as well as their various connotations that constantly shift as we flow through time and space. Reforming such a complex and entrenched institution feels futile. My approach is more radical and certainly requires a degree of effort. However, I still believe it’s much simpler than asking people to attempt to reconceptualize an already vague idea that’s been engrained in the way they think for their whole lives. I would much rather remove terms than constantly explain my use of them to everyone I meet.

With my criticisms now laid aside, I must say that I absolutely love the ideas my objector promotes in their conclusion. My objector writes: “If you’re trying to make the world a better place, make conversation with people.” As previously mentioned, I cannot overstate how deeply I believe in this statement. I don’t know how to solve all of the world’s problems (no one does.) But if there’s anything that I believe will do so, it’s open, good-faith discussion. Again, I must thank my objector, for he has allowed me to engage in this conversation through the essay I’m currently writing and that you’re hopefully reading. I don’t claim that a few opinion pieces are doing much of anything to change the world. I do believe that this type of discussion is what will lead us towards a brighter world. Whether you agree with me, my objector, or anyone else on this subject, the important thing is to have these sorts of conversations and to genuinely care about them and their implications. Without that, we’re stuck.

Bennett Gottesman can be reached at bcgottesman@wesleyan.edu.