The agent is implied, and whether or not they are of good character, the intention of their act makes all the difference. How do you think good character is developed?
I will have to read the rest of your post at a later time.
HumAnIze seems to say that pleasure is good and pain is bad, with the addition of what youâve formulated as the âself = otherâ principle: someone elseâs pain is bad for you, too, and their pleasure good. You have expressed disagreement, saying itâs the intention with which the agent engages in the act of causing pleasure or pain that makes these things good or bad: if they do so with good intentâwhatever that meansâ, that makes the pleasures or pains they cause good, and conversely. But now youâre throwing in the notion of âgood characterâ. Well, by your own logic, good character is developed if the agent(s) who develop the character in question (by creating or building it) do so with good intent, and conversely!
As for me, I havenât subscribed to any notion of good or bad. Still, I do think thereâs such a thing as character and lack of character, relatively speaking of course. And how do I think character is developed? By âa protracted obedience in one directionâ (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 188, translation Zimmern).
âThe one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws.â (Charles Sanders Peirce, âThe Architecture of Theoriesâ.)
âIt should be noted that there is no Hebrew-biblical term for nature, the Hebrew word being derived very indirectly from a Greek word which is an equivalent of nature in Greek, charakter, teva in Hebrew.â (Leo Strauss, âProgress or Return? The Contemporary Crisis in Western Civilizationâ.)
The universe does not revolve around you. You are not its center just because you happen to be the center of your own subjective experience. Your approach is simply narcissism and hubris.
Bad is an intrinsically meaningful concept. So is suffering. I mean REAL suffering, as I said. Like torture. If you torture anyone you are doing something bad, by definition. Again it may result in other good things, sure. One of those good things might be your own personal happy feelings because you just love torturing people so much. But your own psychopathy aside, the act itself is still intrinsically BAD because suffering is intrinsically BAD. This is true unless you are torturing someone whose neurology happens to be rewired somehow and they either donât feel it or somehow interpret it as pleasurable, however even in such an odd case then we arenât even talking about torture and suffering anymore because that person is not experiencing the suffering or torture. Also that person presumably wants to die, assuming the end of your torture would result in their death, so you could be giving them what they want, which would ameliorate the badness of the act and, again, mean you are talking about something else and not what I am talking about.
Not really.
Experience is the essence of subjective.
It can only have objective truth-value if you are willing to impose your morality on everyone else.
Meanwhile the Universe does not give a fuck
QED my last comment
Interesting. I hope Hum responds to your reply to me, but as he is apparently ignoring me, your reply to me will prolly also be ignored, even though you mention him. sigh
So you would refuse to care for other patients for a higher salary, in a different team, where the team spirit is valued even more? Are you lying to yourself, or are you trying to lie to me? Are you perhaps living off âheavenly mannaâ? If you have children, donât they need your salary? Donât make me laugh, my slippers. I was so rich that I didnât know how much money I had. But I gave it all up. Now, compare that to your situation. I simply have no one to spend money on anymore. So I make do with what I have. Although I certainly wouldnât refuse great money, if I could get it, without accompanying problems. For me, âgreatâ money starts at three million.
Movement is relative. Therefore, the statement that the universe revolves around the nose is correct. And it doesnât matter whether anyone likes it or not. By the way, itâs arrogant to claim that movement is not relative and must be tied to something chosen to be high. So, narcissist, here you are. Terrorists planned to kill many people. One got caught. Shouldnât he be tortured? Is that evil?
Would you be bold enough to say that no case for objectivity could ever be made since any specific choice for a point of reference would be, to some degree, interested, and therefor subjective.?
Genuine question
Upon which arbitrary locus does it revolve around?
From what you have been saying, it seems you are claiming it revloves about your personal opinion.
Itâs simpler. Subjectivity and objectivity, only in combination, determine truth. But separately â itâs just ordinary lies. Lies allow us to laugh, going to extremes. No one can exactly disprove that the universe revolves around my nose. Itâs the same as trying to disprove the relativity of motion.
Money, money, money 
I suppose thatâs what poverty is, having no one.
I have a meagre pension and lots of people around me, that is what it is to be rich.
Funny. But is it hard to assume that my loved ones are so well-off that they donât need my money? Are you thinking with your own poverty? Where did I say that I have no close ones, friends, or acquaintances?
Is it that you are too stupid to understand questions, or too lazy to read them.
This is the second time you have answered a different question from the one asked.
The universe probably doesnât revolve around anyone or anything. Thereâs probably no universal good or bad; whatâs good or bad to one isnât necessarily good or bad to another. Iâm reminded:
âIn Platoâs Phaedo, Socrates tells of his unsuccessful youthful efforts to uncover the reality of things by looking directly at them. He soon came to believe that this direct approach blinded him, leaving him with nothing but incoherent experience. Unable to leave it at this nihilist chaos, he needed what Nietzsche called a world, and therefore a god or cosmic mind, an integrating principle, uniting immediate experienceâs chaotic diversity into a coherent, rational whole. Socratic positing of this intelligible reality or universal good âsaves the appearancesâ from nihilism.â (Harry Neumann, Liberalism, âNietzscheâ.)
And, in turn:
âThe question is whether there could not be many other ways of creating such an apparent worldâ[âŚ]; in short, whether that which âposits thingsâ [âin-themselvesâ] is not the sole reality; and whether the âeffect of the external world upon usâ is not also only the result of such active [wollend, âwillingâ] subjects⌠The other âentitiesâ act upon us; our adapted apparent world is an adaptation and overpowering of their actions; a kind of defensive measure. The subject alone is demonstrable; hypothesis that only subjects existâthat âobjectâ is only a kind of effect produced by a subject upon a subjectâa modus of the subject.â (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 569 end, translation Kaufmann.)
Hate to say it but I agree with the OP on this one.
Good and bad is objective, only the most deluded and nihilistic philosophers would deny this.
Like if thereâs a battle and somebody surrenders, and then some 9 foot tall ogre cuts out their tongue and then gouges out one of their eyes with a 5 inch nail, then you intrinsically and viscerally know that person is evil. If you donât know then you are probably filled with subhumanity or are have extreme autism idk
The fact that thereâs people even debating whether or not evil exists in of itself is scary. Humans and chimps are scary. Its like how roman crucifixion used to be the norm. Deeply unsettling that we live in a world like that
2 Likes
Fear is not an argument, nor are gut feelings (âviscerallyâ). Donât you see itâs not given in advance that the truth is with humanity or neurotypicality rather than with inhumanity or neurodivergence? (Even calling it âsubhumanityâ rather than âinhumanityâ already implies humanity is superior to inhumanity, which again is not a given.)
Unfortunate that what you consider good might be bad for me or vice versa. Good is relational and deeply connected with truth, unity and beauty. If we want to do good, we have to respect that.
On the other hand, wanting to do evil, as in your example, disregards everything else. That is why the aspiration to do good must remember the relational aspect.
just sounds like robot autism.
Feelings are the argument, since feelings make me human, instead of for example a robot who doesnât have feelings or opinions.
I could take it a step further and say having feelings and opinions is objectively? subjectively? superior than not having them, therefore your opinion isnât even valid
its like this⌠if nobody has feelings then there is no such thing as evil since people are just robot NPCs that are not harmed by anythingâŚ
however, such a type of being is inherently inferior to feeling beingsâŚ
the ultimate good is of course having no beings exist at all, therefore no suffering. However, it is scientifically unclear if such a state is even possible, because the universe might just split into another dimension where consciousness and life evolves. There is not enough data to know one way or the other
Its objective and does not matter if somebody agrees
If something increases the net suffering of the world it is evil, if someone is in battle and they surrender and a 9 foot tall ogre gouges out their eye it is evil, doesnât matter if anybody agrees or not, it objectively increased the net suffering of the world so it is evil
this is exactly the entire point of what the Jesus concept is