There is an objective good and bad

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
MozartLink
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:42 pm

There is an objective good and bad

Post by MozartLink »

My Absolute Best Logical Argument To Support My New, Objective Definition Of Good And Bad

Introductory Statement To My Logical Argument: Our positive emotions are an objective good and our negative emotions are an objective bad. When you experience the good value via a positive emotion, then it is like that positive emotion is literally a force of good. It would, in a way, be like the light of god. The light of god is sheer objective goodness itself. Likewise, experiencing the bad value via our negative emotions would be like a dark spiritual force. It would be a force of badness.

So, good and bad are not just concepts or ideas. They are actual forces/energies (our emotions). Positive emotions would be euphoric states induced by the brain's biochemicals (serotonin, dopamine, oxytocin, and endorphins). They could be feelings of joy, intense love, or a feeling of relaxation. Negative emotions would be feelings of dysphoria such as feelings of anger, hopelessness, and despair.

Being devoid of the inner light (positive emotions) is no way to live or be an artist since it would be like being devoid of the light of god. As I said before, I am undecided when it comes to the existence of god, the paranormal, and the afterlife. So, this divine and spiritual talk I am giving is simply nothing more than an artistic expression (metaphor/analogy) to get my point across. This analogy could also apply to a purely naturalistic universe as well. This would mean that our positive emotions in a purely naturalistic universe would simply be an objective good with no god attached.

But if we do live in a spiritual universe, then good and bad would not just simply be concepts and ideas such as the idea that the harmful acts of a criminal are bad. There would also be an objective force of goodness in this universe and that force would be the light of god. Our brains would be transceivers that pick up on this divine spiritual energy which would put us into a divine state of mind (a positive emotion) which would allow us to see, not simply acknowledge, the goodness and beauty in this life.

This means that, if these depressed and miserable genius artists had no positive emotions at all, then their claims and beliefs of their lives and art mattering to them in good and beautiful ways would be founded upon a lack of spiritual enlightenment and awakening. They would just be living and creating works of art like machines, so to speak, thinking it is a good and worthwhile life when it never was. It would be like being devoid of the light of god which would be a completely empty way to live and to pursue one's artistic endeavors.

Lastly, don't you hear people say all the time that our emotions are everything to our human existence and that, without them, then we would be like machines? Well, based on this, our emotions would have to be intrinsically (objectively) good and bad regardless of our way of looking at them. Since they are so vital and precious to our human existence, then, in a way, they would have to be like the light of god and the spiritual darkness which are objective good and bad forces/energies. Therefore, I would like to begin with my logical argument that supports this idea of mine:

1.) Positive things can only be positive things while negative things can only be negative things. It would make no sense to say that something positive can be something negative or that something negative can be something positive just as how it would make no sense to say that something good can be something bad or that something bad can be something good. It's like saying that water can be fire or that fire can be water. These are two distinct things.

2.) Positive always equals good while negative always equals bad. There is no exception to this rule and it would make no sense to say otherwise. The only exception would be something such as positive and negative charges since this would be a different definition of positive and negative. But when you say things such as the positive qualities of life, then these are always the good qualities of life. Likewise, when you say the negative qualities of life, then these are always the bad qualities of life.

3.) Positive thoughts are always value judgments of things having good value in our lives, negative thoughts are always value judgments of things having bad value in our lives, while neither positive nor negative thoughts (neutral thoughts) are always value judgments of things having neither good nor bad value in our lives. These would be neutral value judgments. Value judgments allow us to see the good and bad values in our lives according to this premise. However, I later switch it on over to emotions. So, just go with this premise for now.

4.) If something had no good value and we saw good value in it anyway or if something had no bad value and we saw bad value in it, then that would just be our own personal perception. It wouldn't comply with reality, but it would just be our own personal perceived value. Perhaps you could liken it to a hallucination. It would be like a mother feeding her child vegetables. Even though the vegetables are good for the child, the child sees nothing but bad value in them since he hates them. This would be the child's own personal perceived bad value in regards to those vegetables.

5.) Positive thoughts are always subjective wanting and liking while negative thoughts are always subjective not wanting things or disliking things. Having neither positive nor negative thoughts would be neither subjective wanting, liking, unwanting, or disliking. When something matters to you, then you either want it, like it, not want it, or dislike it. If you didn't, then it wouldn't matter to you at all. In addition, there can also be a negative form of subjective wanting which would allow us to perceive things as having bad value in our lives. Such a form of wanting would be something such as wanting to harm someone or give up on life.

6.) Positive and negative thoughts are what allow us to perceive, not simply acknowledge the good and bad values in our lives. Acknowledging things is different than perceiving things because, if you were blind, then you could acknowledge the existence of objects, but you would not be able to see (perceive) them. Simply acknowledging the good and bad values would not be any genuine positive or negative thought and, thus, would not be any genuine good or bad value judgment.

Rather, it would just be something akin to a random, insignificant thought of things having good or bad value in your life. However, acknowledging values is still vital anyway since we can make wise decisions even if we did not want, like, dislike, or not want. Why say that it is still vital even though acknowledging values can't matter to us? According to the conclusion that my logical argument reaches, our value judgments would still have to be vital even though they can't matter to us without our emotions or without the respective emotion.

7.) There is an objective form of wanting and liking. It would be our positive emotions. Here, I will quote it out to you:
We have found a special hedonic hotspot that is crucial for reward 'liking' and 'wanting' (and codes reward learning too). The opioid hedonic hotspot is shown in red above. It works together with another hedonic hotspot in the more famous nucleus accumbens to generate pleasure 'liking'.

‘Liking’ and ‘wanting’ food rewards: Brain substrates and roles in eating disorders

Kent C. Berridge 2009 Mar 29.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2717031/
It would follow from here that our positive emotions are an objective form of positive wanting and liking, our negative emotions being an objective form of negative unwanting, disliking, as well as wanting, while having neither positive nor negative emotions would be an objective form of neutral wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking.

This means that there is no subjective form of wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking since this would be the neutral form. It would be no different than saying that, since emotions come in two forms: positive and negative, then having neither positive nor negative emotions would be a neutral emotion. This neutral emotion would not be any real emotion at all.

Since emotions are the same thing as objective wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking, then the neutral emotion would, therefore, have to be no real form of wanting, liking, unwanting, or disliking. Without our emotions, then we could have thoughts of wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking just as how we can have thoughts of seeing things when we are blind, but that would not be any real form of wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking just as how that would not be any real form of sight either.

Here is just one more argument to support the idea that no subjective wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking exist. Those things are no different than saying that objects, situations, moments, etc. matter to you in positive or negative ways. Recall what I said earlier in premise #5. But since nothing can matter to us without our emotions, then there can't be any subjective wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking.

8.) To summarize all of my previous premises, since the objective form of wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking (our positive and negative emotions) allow us to experience the good and bad qualities of life, then it would have to be our subjective wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking that allow us to perceive the good and bad qualities of life.

A positive thought would allow us to experience an objective positivity (goodness) which would be our positive emotions while a negative thought would allow us to experience an objective negativity (badness) which would be our negative emotions. But since the subjective form does not exist, then we cannot perceive good or bad value in our lives in the absence of our emotions. Rather, it would instead be thoughts of wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking (i.e. good and bad value) that make us feel positive and negative emotions.

9.) Emotions are, therefore, objectively positive (good) and objectively negative (bad) just as how a charge can either be objectively positive or negative. Just consider our emotions to be the good and bad "charges" as opposed to simply positive and negative charges.

Therefore,

Conclusion: Our positive emotions are the only things that can allow us to see the good values in our lives, our negative emotions are the only things that can allow us to see the bad values in our lives, while having neither positive nor negative emotions wouldn't allow us to see any good or bad values in our lives at all. Therefore, the experience of good and bad values in our lives via our emotions is actually a higher and transcended perception of good and bad values in our lives while our value judgments alone (emotional viewpoint) does not give us any perception of good or bad values.

Our emotions would, therefore, be an objective source of experienced positivity (goodness) and negativity (badness). If you wanted to perceive the good values in your life despite feeling a negative emotion, then you would need to feel a positive emotion in despite of that negative one and vice versa. Also, if there was an item such as heroin which was nothing but bad and you felt a positive emotion from it, then you would be seeing it as something good even though it is bad. It would just be your own personal perception in regards to the heroin.

Lastly, let me add something else here to extend upon this logical argument. It is currently believed that we can still see the good and bad values in our lives even without any emotions. People act as though this is something that matters. For example, if you were getting high off of heroin and you thought that it was a bad thing since it would ruin and destroy your health in the long run, then seeing the bad value in that heroin would imply that this is something that matters to you. But without emotions, then nothing can matter to us. This means that if the heroin addict did not feel a negative emotion from thinking it is a bad thing, then it would not matter to him. As long as he is feeling a positive emotion, then things can only matter to him in positive ways since he cannot experience the bad value.

Therefore, it is a misconception to say that we are seeing the good and bad values in our lives in the absence of our positive and negative emotions as this would imply that things can still matter to us and be important to us even without any emotions. That is why we wouldn't be seeing any value in our lives at all without our emotions. Rather, we would just simply be acknowledging value. I realize this sets up a bad model for society because this would mean that good or bad situations wouldn't matter to us without the respective emotion. But this is the only way it can be because our emotions are truly the only things that can make things matter to us in either a positive or negative way.

Very Brief Hedonistic Logical Argument

This logical argument is a very brief extension of the one I've just presented to you:

1.) Positive emotions are an objective form of perceiving good values in our lives. You could consider it, in a way, to be our positive emotions making an objective good value judgment.

2.) Negative emotions are an objective form of perceiving bad values in our lives. You could consider it, in a way, to be our negative emotions making an objective bad value judgment.

3.) Having no emotions at all would be an objective form of perceiving neither good nor bad (neutral) value in our lives. Since our emotions are an objective form of perceiving good and bad value, then having neither positive nor negative emotions would be considered a neutral emotion. A neutral emotion would be an objective form of perceiving no value (neutral value) in our lives. A neutral emotion would not be any real emotion which means we cannot perceive any real value in our lives without our emotions.

Therefore,

Conclusion: Positive emotions are the only way to live and be an artist. Having negative emotions or no emotions at all would be no way to live or be an artist.

The Values That Humanity Lives By Are Duds: Humanity is currently living by their own personal value systems which are not the objective, emotional good and bad. They think these sorts of value systems work to bring their lives real perceived joy, beauty, and goodness. But that would be no different than someone with a dud product that does not work. The person becomes deluded into thinking it works. I mean, it does work, but not the way these people think it works. Our value systems work to help us make wise decisions so that we may avoid harm and foolish choices. So, I will admit, they are still vital. But they do not work to bring our lives any real perceived goodness, beauty, joy, etc. Value judgments alone without emotions are an empty (no quality) standard of living. These objective, emotional values are instead the higher and true values to live by. I call them the consciousness based values since these are values not based on our personal judgments. Rather, they are based upon realizing our own inner conscious light and darkness.
Last edited by MozartLink on Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:44 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: There is an objective good and bad

Post by Greta »

Too long for me reading on a screen and too repetitive, but some elegant turns of phrase and better edited than I can manage :lol: . A few quibbles:
MozartLink wrote:This means that, if these depressed and miserable genius artists had no positive emotions at all, then their claims and beliefs of their lives and art mattering to them in good and beautiful ways would be founded upon a lack of spiritual enlightenment and awakening. They would just be living and creating works of art like machines, so to speak, thinking it is a good and worthwhile life when it never was.
A bit harsh. Whether genius or not, we cannot always live up to what we believe are our potentials. Further, our potentials can be compromised - or spurred - by emotional problems. That side of the creative life can be something of a crap shoot.

Different artists take different approaches. Some have a constant output and, through hard work and the laws of probabilities, some of their work will be satisfyingly authentic artistic expression. Others can be selective, more perfectionist, often less industrious and more contemplative, with many more private experiments in their art that they would not want released.

Is happiness so good? If humans are, as some might suggest, like a cancer on the Earth, then maybe our destruction rather than happiness would be the greater good. I don't actually think that humans are a cancer or parasite, more likely just agents of change like the cyanobacteria a few billions years ago. However, none of us can be certain as to what is going on with "the big picture" so determining objective good or bad is impossible.

The hard questions for proponents of objective morals are "Good for whom?" and "For how long will it be good?".
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: There is an objective good and bad

Post by -1- »

MozartLink wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:27 am My Absolute Best Logical Argument To Support My New, Objective Definition Of Good And Bad

Introductory Statement To My Logical Argument: Our positive emotions are an objective good and our negative emotions are an objective bad. When you experience the good value via a positive emotion, then it is like that positive emotion is literally a force of good. It would, in a way, be like the light of god. The light of god is sheer objective goodness itself. Likewise, experiencing the bad value via our negative emotions would be like a dark spiritual force. It would be a force of badness.

So, good and bad are not just concepts or ideas. They are actual forces/energies (our emotions). Positive emotions would be euphoric states induced by the brain's biochemicals (serotonin, dopamine, oxytocin, and endorphins). They could be feelings of joy, intense love, or a feeling of relaxation. Negative emotions would be feelings of dysphoria such as feelings of anger, hopelessness, and despair.

Being devoid of the inner light (positive emotions) is no way to live or be an artist since it would be like being devoid of the light of god. As I said before, I am undecided when it comes to the existence of god, the paranormal, and the afterlife. So, this divine and spiritual talk I am giving is simply nothing more than an artistic expression (metaphor/analogy) to get my point across. This analogy could also apply to a purely naturalistic universe as well. This would mean that our positive emotions in a purely naturalistic universe would simply be an objective good with no god attached.

But if we do live in a spiritual universe, then good and bad would not just simply be concepts and ideas such as the idea that the harmful acts of a criminal are bad. There would also be an objective force of goodness in this universe and that force would be the light of god. Our brains would be transceivers that pick up on this divine spiritual energy which would put us into a divine state of mind (a positive emotion) which would allow us to see, not simply acknowledge, the goodness and beauty in this life.

This means that, if these depressed and miserable genius artists had no positive emotions at all, then their claims and beliefs of their lives and art mattering to them in good and beautiful ways would be founded upon a lack of spiritual enlightenment and awakening. They would just be living and creating works of art like machines, so to speak, thinking it is a good and worthwhile life when it never was. It would be like being devoid of the light of god which would be a completely empty way to live and to pursue one's artistic endeavors.

Lastly, don't you hear people say all the time that our emotions are everything to our human existence and that, without them, then we would be like machines? Well, based on this, our emotions would have to be intrinsically (objectively) good and bad regardless of our way of looking at them. Since they are so vital and precious to our human existence, then, in a way, they would have to be like the light of god and the spiritual darkness which are objective good and bad forces/energies. Therefore, I would like to begin with my logical argument that supports this idea of mine:

1.) Positive things can only be positive things while negative things can only be negative things. It would make no sense to say that something positive can be something negative or that something negative can be something positive just as how it would make no sense to say that something good can be something bad or that something bad can be something good. It's like saying that water can be fire or that fire can be water. These are two distinct things.

2.) Positive always equals good while negative always equals bad. There is no exception to this rule and it would make no sense to say otherwise. The only exception would be something such as positive and negative charges since this would be a different definition of positive and negative. But when you say things such as the positive qualities of life, then these are always the good qualities of life. Likewise, when you say the negative qualities of life, then these are always the bad qualities of life.

3.) Positive thoughts are always value judgments of things having good value in our lives, negative thoughts are always value judgments of things having bad value in our lives, while neither positive nor negative thoughts (neutral thoughts) are always value judgments of things having neither good nor bad value in our lives. These would be neutral value judgments. Value judgments allow us to see the good and bad values in our lives according to this premise. However, I later switch it on over to emotions. So, just go with this premise for now.

4.) If something had no good value and we saw good value in it anyway or if something had no bad value and we saw bad value in it, then that would just be our own personal perception. It wouldn't comply with reality, but it would just be our own personal perceived value. Perhaps you could liken it to a hallucination. It would be like a mother feeding her child vegetables. Even though the vegetables are good for the child, the child sees nothing but bad value in them since he hates them. This would be the child's own personal perceived bad value in regards to those vegetables.

5.) Positive thoughts are always subjective wanting and liking while negative thoughts are always subjective not wanting things or disliking things. Having neither positive nor negative thoughts would be neither subjective wanting, liking, unwanting, or disliking. When something matters to you, then you either want it, like it, not want it, or dislike it. If you didn't, then it wouldn't matter to you at all. In addition, there can also be a negative form of subjective wanting which would allow us to perceive things as having bad value in our lives. Such a form of wanting would be something such as wanting to harm someone or give up on life.

6.) Positive and negative thoughts are what allow us to perceive, not simply acknowledge the good and bad values in our lives. Acknowledging things is different than perceiving things because, if you were blind, then you could acknowledge the existence of objects, but you would not be able to see (perceive) them. Simply acknowledging the good and bad values would not be any genuine positive or negative thought and, thus, would not be any genuine good or bad value judgment.

Rather, it would just be something akin to a random, insignificant thought of things having good or bad value in your life. However, acknowledging values is still vital anyway since we can make wise decisions even if we did not want, like, dislike, or not want. Why say that it is still vital even though acknowledging values can't matter to us? According to the conclusion that my logical argument reaches, our value judgments would still have to be vital even though they can't matter to us without our emotions or without the respective emotion.

7.) There is an objective form of wanting and liking. It would be our positive emotions. Here, I will quote it out to you:
We have found a special hedonic hotspot that is crucial for reward 'liking' and 'wanting' (and codes reward learning too). The opioid hedonic hotspot is shown in red above. It works together with another hedonic hotspot in the more famous nucleus accumbens to generate pleasure 'liking'.

‘Liking’ and ‘wanting’ food rewards: Brain substrates and roles in eating disorders

Kent C. Berridge 2009 Mar 29.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2717031/
It would follow from here that our positive emotions are an objective form of positive wanting and liking, our negative emotions being an objective form of negative unwanting, disliking, as well as wanting, while having neither positive nor negative emotions would be an objective form of neutral wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking.

This means that there is no subjective form of wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking since this would be the neutral form. It would be no different than saying that, since emotions come in two forms: positive and negative, then having neither positive nor negative emotions would be a neutral emotion. This neutral emotion would not be any real emotion at all.

Since emotions are the same thing as objective wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking, then the neutral emotion would, therefore, have to be no real form of wanting, liking, unwanting, or disliking. Without our emotions, then we could have thoughts of wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking just as how we can have thoughts of seeing things when we are blind, but that would not be any real form of wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking just as how that would not be any real form of sight either.

Here is just one more argument to support the idea that no subjective wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking exist. Those things are no different than saying that objects, situations, moments, etc. matter to you in positive or negative ways. Recall what I said earlier in premise #5. But since nothing can matter to us without our emotions, then there can't be any subjective wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking.

8.) To summarize all of my previous premises, since the objective form of wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking (our positive and negative emotions) allow us to experience the good and bad qualities of life, then it would have to be our subjective wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking that allow us to perceive the good and bad qualities of life.

A positive thought would allow us to experience an objective positivity (goodness) which would be our positive emotions while a negative thought would allow us to experience an objective negativity (badness) which would be our negative emotions. But since the subjective form does not exist, then we cannot perceive good or bad value in our lives in the absence of our emotions. Rather, it would instead be thoughts of wanting, liking, unwanting, and disliking (i.e. good and bad value) that make us feel positive and negative emotions.

9.) Emotions are, therefore, objectively positive (good) and objectively negative (bad) just as how a charge can either be objectively positive or negative. Just consider our emotions to be the good and bad "charges" as opposed to simply positive and negative charges.

Therefore,

Conclusion: Our positive emotions are the only things that can allow us to see the good values in our lives, our negative emotions are the only things that can allow us to see the bad values in our lives, while having neither positive nor negative emotions wouldn't allow us to see any good or bad values in our lives at all. Therefore, the experience of good and bad values in our lives via our emotions is actually a higher and transcended perception of good and bad values in our lives while our value judgments alone (emotional viewpoint) does not give us any perception of good or bad values.

Our emotions would, therefore, be an objective source of experienced positivity (goodness) and negativity (badness). If you wanted to perceive the good values in your life despite feeling a negative emotion, then you would need to feel a positive emotion in despite of that negative one and vice versa. Also, if there was an item such as heroin which was nothing but bad and you felt a positive emotion from it, then you would be seeing it as something good even though it is bad. It would just be your own personal perception in regards to the heroin.

Lastly, let me add something else here to extend upon this logical argument. It is currently believed that we can still see the good and bad values in our lives even without any emotions. People act as though this is something that matters. For example, if you were getting high off of heroin and you thought that it was a bad thing since it would ruin and destroy your health in the long run, then seeing the bad value in that heroin would imply that this is something that matters to you. But without emotions, then nothing can matter to us. This means that if the heroin addict did not feel a negative emotion from thinking it is a bad thing, then it would not matter to him. As long as he is feeling a positive emotion, then things can only matter to him in positive ways since he cannot experience the bad value.

Therefore, it is a misconception to say that we are seeing the good and bad values in our lives in the absence of our positive and negative emotions as this would imply that things can still matter to us and be important to us even without any emotions. That is why we wouldn't be seeing any value in our lives at all without our emotions. Rather, we would just simply be acknowledging value. I realize this sets up a bad model for society because this would mean that good or bad situations wouldn't matter to us without the respective emotion. But this is the only way it can be because our emotions are truly the only things that can make things matter to us in either a positive or negative way.

Very Brief Hedonistic Logical Argument

This logical argument is a very brief extension of the one I've just presented to you:

1.) Positive emotions are an objective form of perceiving good values in our lives. You could consider it, in a way, to be our positive emotions making an objective good value judgment.

2.) Negative emotions are an objective form of perceiving bad values in our lives. You could consider it, in a way, to be our negative emotions making an objective bad value judgment.

3.) Having no emotions at all would be an objective form of perceiving neither good nor bad (neutral) value in our lives. Since our emotions are an objective form of perceiving good and bad value, then having neither positive nor negative emotions would be considered a neutral emotion. A neutral emotion would be an objective form of perceiving no value (neutral value) in our lives. A neutral emotion would not be any real emotion which means we cannot perceive any real value in our lives without our emotions.

Therefore,

Conclusion: Positive emotions are the only way to live and be an artist. Having negative emotions or no emotions at all would be no way to live or be an artist.

The Values That Humanity Lives By Are Duds: Humanity is currently living by their own personal value systems which are not the objective, emotional good and bad. They think these sorts of value systems work to bring their lives real perceived joy, beauty, and goodness. But that would be no different than someone with a dud product that does not work. The person becomes deluded into thinking it works. I mean, it does work, but not the way these people think it works. Our value systems work to help us make wise decisions so that we may avoid harm and foolish choices. So, I will admit, they are still vital. But they do not work to bring our lives any real perceived goodness, beauty, joy, etc. Value judgments alone without emotions are an empty (no quality) standard of living. These objective, emotional values are instead the higher and true values to live by. I call them the consciousness based values since these are values not based on our personal judgments. Rather, they are based upon realizing our own inner conscious light and darkness.
I would like to reply to some part of your argument here. To make it interesting, I won't point out which statement and what part.

A thing can be both good AND bad at the same time but not in the same respect.

Imagine a situation where you are on an ice float after a shipwreck, and you clear have run out of food. The nearest MacDonalds is 1385 nautical miles away, and you have no means to get there.

There are two people on the float. A woman, your wife, and you. If you are a woman, too, then two women.

Starvation to death is imminent. Death is feared.

A one-time baby's corpse is floating toward you. (Technically, it's a dead baby float.) You are both eyeing it with the motivation lurking to eat it.

The one who eats it survives, the other one dies of starvation.

It is good for you to eat it, and bad for you if the other woman eats it.

For the other woman, it is good if you don't eat it, and it is bad if you eat it.

Clearly, a good and a bad is relativistically assigned as a value. This refutes some point in your argument, a point which was germane to the point of your argument.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: There is an objective good and bad

Post by HexHammer »

Dear Mozart what you always say is pure nonsense and babble. Please go elsewhere and post your nonsense since this is a philosophy forum ..you know "love of wisdom" your nonsense and babble isn't wisdom.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: There is an objective good and bad

Post by Harbal »

-1- wrote: Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:12 pm
I would like to reply to some part of your argument here. To make it interesting, I won't point out which statement and what part.
This isn't the most useful way of going about things, as I'm sure you would be quickly made aware of were you to approach filling out your tax return using the same method.
Imagine a situation where you are on an ice float after a shipwreck, and you clear have run out of food. The nearest MacDonalds is 1385 nautical miles away, and you have no means to get there.
You'd have to make do with Burger King, it's no use being fussy in an emergency.
A one-time baby's corpse is floating toward you.
How many times is it possible to be a baby?
(Technically, it's a dead baby float.)
Can't argue with the logic in that.
Clearly, a good and a bad is relativistically assigned as a value. This refutes some point in your argument, a point which was germane to the point of your argument.
But you're not going to point out which point?
Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: There is an objective good and bad

Post by Dalek Prime »

Yeah, I'm not buying it. It's still all subjective.
Post Reply