I am very, very sympathetic to people who are vocally immoralist/antinomian because I think this usually stems from having a profound disagreement with conventional morality that you don't want to have to be constantly explaining or defending. But I do think it's good to understand your own behavior as constrained by some kind of coherent principles of ethics and not just "I do what I want".
Ironically this can require you to diverge further from conventional morality, by actually affirming (if only to yourself) an alternative positive vision of ethical behavior rather than just accepting conventional morals and adding "but I do what I want".
I go back and forth on this a lot. In certain company, it’s important to identify as evil, but that it’s pretty bad to do it by default.
There are certain moral frameworks (some religious, some not) that try to eat their cake and have it too. They identify you as intrinsically evil, hammer that point home very hard, and then offer a path to (partial, not total) restitution or repentance. The logical contradiction is obvious: if you’re intrinsically and irreparably evil, then why would you care to repent? And if you care to repent, then how could it be that you’re intrinsically and irreparably evil? Christianity is the elephant in the room on this one, but there was a strong thread of it running through SJ as well, and forms of it pop up all over the place really.
If somebody starts a conversation by asserting that I’m monstrous, then I think it’s pretty important to agree with them, and to say (in my capacity as an inherently monstrous being) that I am indifferent to their vision of the good. Anything less is pretty much handing other people infinite license to exploit a shame that cannot be discharged.
But it’s equally bad to carry that reference frame away from the conversation. So while I’m talking to such people “I’m evil, and I do not want to be good.” And then I set that down when the conversation ends.
The logical contradiction is obvious: if you’re intrinsically and irreparably evil, then why would you care to repent? And if you care to repent, then how could it be that you’re intrinsically and irreparably evil?
That sounds like a weird misinterpretation. Those frameworks tell you that you're imperfect (have some inborn sin; are unable to avoid sinning even if you try real hard; have unconscious racist bias), that the imperfection is severe rather than "oh well pobody's nerfect", and that it can't be fixed without the cure they're selling you. They're definitely not telling you that you have no desire to do good or repent. At most, they may tell you that this desire is divine grace rather than your own, and there's more where that came from.
