Philosophy Now Forum

Rhetorical tricks the undefined question
Other than if we and society are utterly amorally free – which is probably impossible – ethics is about knowing what sets of values and what motives we are for and against, or what is ambiguous and insoluble.
To ask a person if he is antijewish or antichristian is an empty question, if the particular values and motives implied are not defined. Once the values are defined an answer should be possible, and a rational answer for or against must be accepted by an altruist society, although not by authoritarian and bigoted society.
If the ensuing question is whether the defined set of values can be tolerated in another person. An answer to the negative may be made. But it is the altruist society as a body that must decide if its answer is negative. Albeit, in many instances, there will be an ideal set above what is tolerated. It is ideal that society must propagate openly.

I find the terminology very unusual. In a scientific discussion we should attempt some clarity about the use of terms so we use the same words in the same respect. For instance, I don't understand what altruist is supposed to indicate. Does it simply mean good? What is the point of praising someone for being "other directed" in the abstract? Each of us are surely better off if others take care of their own hygiene for example, and in many other respects being "self-directed" is obviously beneficial not just to the person involved, but to everyone. The extreme cases are pathological, of course, but then, only because they are excessive, as with the case of the destructive accumulation of money. But, even in that case, it is not so simple since billionaires, say Elon Musk, may be able to do collective good precisely through selfish accumulation.

Basically, I am having trouble responding to your thesis because of the hurdles of a lack of shared terminology and assumptions.