Perhaps not. Avoiding philosophical debates on the nature and existence of good or bad.... You’ve got some certifiably bad people like certain serial killers, who easily admit there is something bad or evil about them. But then look at others. Did Stalin or Did Martin Shrkeli think they were bad? How many people say they are “good people who had to make hard choices” or “did good for the majority by doing bad by the few” or likewise? Were all of those priests that touched those kids unrepentant monsters who embraced being rapists? Or did they see themselves as good people, or did they see themselves as good people who “succumb to temptation?” It’s hard enough to sum up all the complex thoughts and deeds and motivations and results of a life as “good” or “bad” even if you try to “balance” the two case by case and take a sum total. Worrying about being good is only one step. Genuine effort is at least required, in the end you can only be the best person you’re capable of.
Every hero is the villian to some. Perspective is key here.
Let's have two people, Alfonz and Berny. Alfonz wants to stop his village from being destroyed and therefore wants to stop Berny from doing "something" that will destroy his village. But Berny also wants to stop his village from being destroyed and has to do "something" to prevent its destruction. Each person sees each other as the bad guy.
There’s also “perversion of the golden rule.” Aka: do unto others as your want done unto you. Well- what if for instance one were to hate something enough- say you felt that you’d rather be dead than poor, then to that person, killing a poor person would be doing them a favor. If one felt that the greatest suffering was to not have a defined purpose, then taking away the “curse” of freedom and replacing it with slavery would be a “kindness.” These are a bit extreme but illustrate the concept of how when we apply our own morality to others as of it were their own, we can easily pervert the “golden rule” and why understanding others is key to living together.
That actually reminds me of a magic system I've heard of recently. There was a certain ability of one of the magic users where they could steal the signature ability of the user, but the ability couldn't be used in ways that contradicted the owner's philosophy. One example was the ability to manipulate objects. The person who stole the ability saw human corpses as objects, but the owner didn't see them as objects. This contradiction didn't allow the magic to affect human corpses because the owner's way of thinking contradicted the one who stole it.
Comments
Let's have two people, Alfonz and Berny. Alfonz wants to stop his village from being destroyed and therefore wants to stop Berny from doing "something" that will destroy his village. But Berny also wants to stop his village from being destroyed and has to do "something" to prevent its destruction. Each person sees each other as the bad guy.