Can you point out a single person that holds those views?

I’m in SW Virginia so I do use y’all. Fun fact: my town of Lynchburg is home to Liberty University a gigantic super conservative Christian college that pretty much runs everything. They just finished this large tower to be higher than anything else in the city to house their theology program. I think they need to reread their Old Testament! — MysticMonist

I went to high school in Martinsville. We moved there when I was 15. I don't really belong in the south.

Surely you read other threads on this forum. I think you're being disingenuous.

Rather than picking on anyone present, I've tracked down some examples for you.

And now to my socialist friends who are here present: I have said that Jesus wanted what you want, that he wanted to help those who are least, that he wanted to establish the kingdom of God upon this earth, that he wanted to abolish self-seeking property, that he wanted to make persons into comrades. Your concerns are in line with the concerns of Jesus. Real socialism is real Christianity in our time. — Barth

This is a direct reduction of Jesus to social justice. "Religion is politics."

The seed of a metaphysical or religious defeat is in us all. For the honest questioner, however, who doesn’t seek refuge in some faith or fantasy, there will never be an answer.

In accordance with my conception of life, I have chosen not to bring children into the world. A coin is examined, and only after careful deliberation, given to a beggar, whereas a child is flung out into the cosmic brutality without hesitation.

The dread of being stares us in the eye, and in a deadly gush we perceive how the minds are dangling in threads of their own spinning, and that a hell is lurking underneath.

But as he stands before imminent death, he grasps its nature also, and the cosmic import of the step to come. His creative imagination constructs new, fearful prospects behind the curtain of death, and he sees that even there is no sanctuary found. And now he can discern the outline of his biologico-cosmic terms: He is the universe’s helpless captive, kept to fall into nameless possibilities. From this moment on, he is in a state of relentless panic. — Zapffe

That Zappfe bothers to speak this terrible "truth" implies that his knowledge is a form of virtue, IMV.

That Schopenhauer guy, like one guy. Russell said that people that are depressed, like people that sleep badly are often proud of the fact, and given under ten percentage of people are actually majorly depressed, and I doubt all of them would characterize happiness as a sin, and depression as a virtue... that's like super liberally 5% of the population, super liberally. One guy that I know of on the forum, hardly common.

I'd be interested in pointing out like a known public figure, not just the one guy on the forum here. Even Shopenhaucer hardly held that happiness was a sin, unattainable, maybe, bad not a bad thing.

That Zapffe can turn a pretty good phrase, that was fairly engaging, though neither of them said that happiness was a sin.

As I said, away from particular "moral vanities," we all respond positively to health and happiness. On the other hand:

The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict.

We will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.

Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.

He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it. — MLK

This is what I have in mind, the accusation of neutrality. I'm not even defending neutrality, or at least not presenting it as a necessity. I'm suggesting that there's something "morbid" in this conflation of doing the evil and standing by, tolerating it. It suggests to me a "making guilty" of the detached mode. He who is not with me is against me. Happiness, from this perspective, is only justified or innocent, if it is accompanied by the fight for social justice. The self is only "correctly" fixed as this same self fixes the world.

Here's the intro to the article:

On this anniversary of the March On Washington for civil rights, I have been looking for some choice quotes from Martin Luther King, Jr. One pattern that I have found is his clarity in speaking out on complacency and inaction. Those who do nothing while witnessing injustice and wrong-doing do worse than those who commit acts of injustice. The privileged have a responsibility to do what they know is right. — article

The complacent are worse? A self-concerned happiness or complacency is presented as worse "sin" in this context than the active violation of others. I'd analyze this as a manifestation of the resentment the idealist feels toward those who are not persuaded by his particular crystallization of virtue. He hates them more than the "bad guy" who after all makes his virtuous role possible. Cynically speaking, the "real" enemy is the "complacency" that refuses to recognize the idealist's moral authority. To be fair, I think this "dark side" is mixed with genuine empathy and laudable intentions. I don't reduce social justice rhetoric to vanity. It just tempts us toward an "excess" or closing of our minds.

https://paradoxologies.org/2010/08/28/martin-luther-king-jr-on-complacency-mlk/

Sounds like Mill's "Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing". You know that MLK was a big time plagiarist? He plagiarized, and took credit for a lot in university, and it wasn't even uncovered until 1991.

Hadn't heard that. I've heard the rumor about womanizing. I never looked into the plausibly of the womanizing rumor.

The FBI gathered wiretaps and information about his infidelities and then sent him a letter threatening to release the information if he didn't "do what he needed to do", which he thought meant kill himself, but they maintain only meant resign. Whether he just liked conversing with a lot of women, and emotional infidelity is disputed, as the tapes never actually were released, gotta wait ten more years until they are to find out the juicy details.

(Got to love when you can use the 2nd person plural). — MysticMonist

Although there is some dialectal retention of the original plural ye and the original singular thou, most English-speaking groups have lost the original forms. Because of the loss of the original singular-plural distinction, many English dialects belonging to this group have innovated new plural forms of the second person pronoun. Examples of such pronouns sometimes seen and heard include:

y'all, or you all – southern United States,[1] African American Vernacular English, the Abaco Islands,[2] St. Helena[2] and Tristan da Cunha.[2] Y'all however, is also occasionally used for the second person singular in the North American varieties.
you guys [ju gajz~juɣajz] – U.S.,[3] particularly in the Midwest, Northeast, South Florida and West Coast; Canada, Australia. Used regardless of the genders of those referred to
you lot – UK,[4] Palmerston Island[5]
you-all, all-you – Caribbean English,[6] Saba[5]
a(ll)-yo-dis – Guyana[6]
among(st)-you – Carriacou, Grenada, Guyana,[6] Utila[5]
wunna – Barbados [6]
yinna – Bahamas[6]
unu/oona – Jamaica, Belize, Cayman Islands, Barbados,[6] San Salvador Island[2]
yous(e) – Ireland,[7] Tyneside,[8] Merseyside,[9] Central Scotland,[10] Australia,[11] Falkland Islands,[2] New Zealand,[5] Rural Canada
yous(e) guys – in the U.S., particularly in New York City region, Philadelphia, Northeastern Pennsylvania, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan;[citation needed]
you-uns/yinz – Western Pennsylvania, The Ozarks, The Appalachians[12]
ye/yee/yees/yiz – Ireland,[13] Tyneside,[14] Newfoundland and Labrador[5]
Although these plurals are used in daily speech, they are not always considered acceptable in formal writing situations. — Wikipedia

I hear "youse" (z sound on 's') in the midwest; whether it is ethnically derived (eastern European) or an affectation of working classness, I do not know.

They just finished this large tower to be higher than anything else in the city to house their theology program. — MysticMonist

The better to throw heretics off of...

The FBI gathered wiretaps and information about his infidelities and then sent him a letter threatening to release the information if he didn't "do what he needed to do", which he thought meant kill himself, but they maintain only meant resign. Whether he just liked conversing with a lot of women, and emotional infidelity is disputed, as the tapes never actually were released, gotta wait ten more years until they are to find out the juicy details. — Wosret

Are we complaining that the person who, more than any other person, precipitated the most important social change, the best thing that has ever happened, in US history plagiarized other people's work and cheated on his wife? Did you expect perfection? He gave his life for what he believed in. I wonder if he even thought of himself as virtuous.

They just finished this large tower to be higher than anything else in the city to house their theology program. — MysticMonist

The better to throw heretics off of... — Bitter Crank

I assumed it was built to house the language departments.

Is Virtue found in most people — MysticMonist

I think most people are at least reasonably virtuous, though "virtue" might not be a word they would use to describe their own behavior. Parents teach children the basics of virtue, unless they (the parents) are mentally, emotionally, or morally ssdefective. Virtue, for most people, is a behavior rather than a philosophical system. They live lives in which they behave properly (more or less), obey the rules of social interaction, obey the law, put in an honest days' work

What does being a virtuous person in today’s world really look like? Is Virtue found in most people, most of the time or it is rare and only the product of intense training and self-renunciation? Is human virtue is even possible? — MysticMonist

Is it enough to be a loving family member, be honest in your job and obey most of the laws? In short to not be terrible and ruin it for everyone. — MysticMonist

I am happy with that simple definition, even if it not a complex system. I would be even more happy if everyone hewed to being so virtuous as your simple formula.

be a loving family member
be honest in your job
obey most of the laws

involves prerequisites:

being able to love others
recognize the great value of loving families (even if many are not)
the ability to be patient and caring

having honesty as a trait in the first place
understanding or exercising the necessity of mutual honesty; (we can't do business if people aren't honest)
being responsible and diligent

understanding civic responsibility
understanding where their own rights end, and someone else's begin
having the capacity to discern very important laws (insuring one's car, obeying the speed limit) from less important laws (not putting enough money in the parking meter)

I assumed it was built to house the language departments. — T Clark

Are there more heretics in the language departments than the theology department?

I assumed it was built to house the language departments. — T Clark

Are there more heretics in the language departments than the theology department? — Bitter Crank

I was going back to the irony pointed out in MMs original post on this subject.

Are there more heretics in the language departments than the theology department? — Bitter Crank

At least heresy is more severely punished by English teachers than by theology ones. At least double the risk of defenestration. (I got to use that word in context, so fun).

I have a sister in law who is a middle school English teacher. I thought she would be interested some aspects of philosophy of language or my rejection of standardized grammar (my posts take a brave stand there!) or my criticism of being taught MLA citations only to use APA in my career. I even shared my thoughts on the philosophic undertones of commonly assigned high school literature and the ascetics of literature in general. You’d never guess this, it’s shocking. But instead of being greatful for my insights I was nearly defenestrated and I never bring up language or literature around family gatherings again.

In contrast, after discussing withmy very conservative, evangelical grand father in law about the Gospel of Thomas we politely agreed to disagree. I fear the grammar police more than the inquisition.

I was thinking about some of your points when I posed my question. If everyone in world just avoided being terrible and didn’t commit murder, or significant theft and other very bad things then the world be instantly much better with far less suffering. It wouldn’t require us to be saints just no one to be completely terrible. Just a little bit of decency and morality universally applied would go a long, long way.

I think I’ve mentioned the Jewish teaching about the noahide covenant on the forum before. But it’s 7 laws that as a gentile you can follow and according to the Jews merit life in the “world to come” even without being a Jew.
1. No idolatry
2. No blasphemy
3. No murder
4. No theft
5. No sexual immorality
6. No eating limbs torn from live animals
7. Help establish just laws and courts
If have violated or do in the future violate one of these, repentance and atonement is requried but it’s not one strike and your out. The Rabbis also interpret there pretty narrowly so
Sexual immorality basically means no rape or adultury but doesn’t include many lesser sexual impurities.
Again it would be nice if everyone was a noahide and lived by those laws. But as someone who practiced being by a noahide (Judiasm light) for about a year I quickly found it lacking in greater depth or where to go from there.

... being a loving family member, being honest in your job, and obeying most of the laws is a good start.

1. No idolatry
2. No blasphemy
3. No murder
4. No theft
5. No sexual immorality
6. No eating limbs torn from live animals
7. Help establish just laws and courts

is more specific; I would agree that it isn't very 'deep' -- except for #7. #7 has more depth.

Someone who has fulfilled your initial minimum, or 1-6 of the list of 7 is ready to go further. They have learned how to behave themselves. Behaving ourselves is a good share of morality.

Conceiving just laws and courts isn't the only thing remaining. There is nothing proactively positive, forward looking in the list. Someone who is in a loving family has a good start. But (at least to me) one should strive to "love more". Love more actively. Being minimally good doesn't include acts of mercy. One's family, job, and legal compliance doesn't include seeking justice.

At least as I conceive of it, "morality" is more than the minimum. It looks beyond the family; it examines the work place critically, and is prepared to judge the laws to which we are compliant. There is nothing about the good of generosity towards those in need. As Hosea put it, Do justice, love mercy...

It's good that people are in loving families, are good workers, and obey the rules. But the value of the good is diminished when they see injustice and say "Well, that's not my problem." "No, I don't want to get involved." "I gave at the office." "I never sign petitions." "No, I won't give you a dollar for food; you'd just waste it on booze--get a job, you lazy bum." and so on.

It's good to give to beggars: it might be more good for the giver to part with a dollar than for the bigger to get the dollar--or more. Sure. They might spend some of their money on booze -- well, so do I. They might be lazy, just like I am lazy sometimes. But begging all day is rather hard work. I generally assume that they can't stand the constraints of working with other people on the job, so begging is about all that is left. I have quit jobs several times because I just couldn't stand working in the place. Found my coworkers positively loathsome.

So, morality includes discerning the situation in other people and not judging too harshly.

Hmmm, we members of the National Association of English Majors can be a ruthless lot, true enough. But we prefer to not defenestrate -- we prefer to exsanguinate.

But we prefer to not defenestrate -- we prefer to exsanguinate. — Bitter Crank

We engineers would rather pitch them out windows or slit their throats.

Whatever works.