They are different words, I said they can maybe be conflated. It depends on the exact context. You act like I said they are opposite.
Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse?
How is it you manage to successfully reiterate the proper conclusion to me repeatedly, and then subsequently proceed to miss the point?
Yes, my good is your good is a psychopaths good.
Morality (or goodness/wrongness) is subjective.
It ends there. No further waxing necessary. Period.
All there is, is societal structures that are completely fabricated out of social norms and collectively agreed upon ideas, whereby we have a massive system to punish those who go against those agreed upon rules/ideas, in which that system is overflowing with people who actively disregard it, in which different countries also fill their according systems by different rules and ideas.
Are you? Do you not know what conflated means? Combing right and good into one concept. And wrong, bad into another. That was rhetorical, I know you do.
Then according to you, there is no good. It is a meaningless term. There is neither evil, nor good, just people doing things.
According to you, rape and murder are as morally neutral as eating cake or sleeping 8 hours a night.
You’re deliberately using an overbroad convention (right/wrong) while trying to scold me for confusing correct/incorrect with right/wrong when I’m talking about truth and goodness in a discussion about moral oughts.
Holy crap dude. Don’t deliberately dumb down and obfuscate the language…
Way to now shift the goal posts. You were strawmaning my argument. To something it was not about goodness and truth. Now I’m scolding you (implying unjustifiably) for calling you out?
No, you strawman-addicted broken record.
There is a good according to me.
There is a not-good according to me as well.
They aren’t objective, though.
The fact you think green is a good color and I don’t doesn’t mean green doesn’t exist, or colors don’t exist. It just means you think x is good or bad and I also think x is good or bad.
So yes, again, you’ve repeated the ultimate conclusion correctly, but still seem to miss the point.
You also snuck the word “evil” in there, which I also believe doesn’t really exist.
These aren’t wisdom-seeking questions.
Could’a fooled me, young apprentice.
You made statements that I didn’t understand. When asked for clarification you refused to answer.
There’s nothing made to fool anyone.
Are they objectively not objective or subjectivily not objective?
You communicated badly, and then took umbrage with my use of your communication, and you have STILL not shown how my usage was in conflict.
Which doesn’t matter when your good is a meaningless term that only answers your personal aesthetics. The moment you step outside of YOUR actions, your sense of goodness evaporates against everyone else’s. You have no place to tell anyone else what they are doing is good or not.
That renders goodness itself, according to your terms, nonexistent. It is a nonsense word you use to describe a subset of your personal whims, nothing more.
Evil is just disordered good, so either you think good can’t be disordered or you think good doesn’t exist. I’ll go with the latter.
Green only exists insomuch as we have a standard for green! How do you manage to use an example that directly exposes your logical failings and not see the problem?!
/boggle
Speaking of asking numerous questions…
1 Like
It absolutely matters.
To me.
Which is the only person it needs to matter to. I don’t care if you see my good as anything else, because how you feel about it is irrelevant to me, because it’s subjective.
Ah yes, that thing you do where you make up your own definition to things to suit your argument even though your definition disagrees with all known and recorded definitions. A real blast, that.
Evil in almost all known dictionaries refers to something that is morally bad or morally reprehensible. In accordance with my belief that morality is subjective, naturally I don’t believe evil exists. It is still a concept with a definition though, that I would respect, just like I don’t think unicorns exists, but still recognize the concept of them.
You don’t get to argue your way out of definitions.
Colors literally exist and we can measure them, just like a mathematical equation. Colors are a literal scientific fact.
I’ve never met someone who so blatantly displays their profound ignorance as courageously as you.
If I challenged this, upon what basis would you argue otherwise?
…who cares?
…wut?
Do you not understand what “disordered” means?
Truth is perfectly ordered. Lies are a disordering of truth, which is why it is more accurate to describe lies as disordered truth rather than simply untruth. We already have multiple words and descriptions for the varieties in which truth is disordered:
- Equivocation
- Omission
- Misdirection
- Exaggeration
When a little kid screams in protest that “Well I didn’t say anything FALSE” and the response is “But you didn’t tell the truth either…”, the aforementioned disordering of truth is exactly what is being discussed.
Order vs disorder isn’t some made up definition.
Morality is no different regarding order and disorder. Evil isn’t a thing separate from good, it is a breakdown, corruption of, dysfunction of, disordering of good. A person doing a good deed just to have something to boast about later has still done good (the deed itself), but whose overall actions are not good because pride and insecure needs have corrupted doing an act of good for goodness’ sake.
A unicorn is any thing I wish to define as a unicorn. Because it doesn’t exist, any definition will suffice. You keep… missing.
You’re confusing the wavelength with what we name it… /headdesk
But you are sidestepping the point. The wavelength of light exists. Regardless of label.
Unless you want to question all existence but then I think we are done.
Hardly.
Green is a constructed taxonomy, not the wavelength itself. We can all identify a range of wavelengths as “green” or even “greenish” because we have an agreed upon standard that wavelengths from X to Y denote green.
/headdesk
I didn’t refute the existence of color itself, I pointed out the silliness of referencing a taxonomy standard which tells us the NAMES of color.
Y’all struggling…
But you are, that is completely off topic. Is the wavelength of light 550 nm. Right or wrong. That is the topic.
Bah you got it in my head to switch terms. Right wrong.
It isn’t in the slightest.
Moral relativists, that is those that reduce moral truths down to limited local rules that cannot extend beyond the borders of that local region (whether that region is a country, a city, or the mind of a single person), can never truly act as moral relativists. They find Hitler reprehensible, not just because modern society told them so, but because he just IS. They are disgusted at sexual assault, torture, lies that ruin lives, destruction of the environment, etc, and they will CLAIM society imprinted all of this despite having never been taught most of it.
But most damning of all, moral relativists get pretty jacked up when people in power mandate moral rules and order that they don’t agree with. The question Zipzo can never answer, nor any other relativist for that matter, is “so what?” when a relativist voices complaint or concern. If everything is truly relative and subjective, then HitlerBot2000 coming into power next year in the U.S. is nothing more than a personal dislike, and the relativist has no grounds on which to condemn the atrocities that follow.
If you want to actually enforce a rule on someone outside of yourself, you can either remain a relativist and just take brutal control of the other person and be a tyrant… or you have to abandon relativism and accept at least one objective or universal rule that applies to BOTH OF YOU REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCE. As much as people want to whine about tyranny-this and tyranny-that, the US is not a land ruled and operated by sheer power alone, so any contention that the modern world is run by relativism is facially bunk.
So why the color reference?
In order to beat someone over the head and declare that a color you’re both looking at is “Green” as opposed to “Purple”, you have to have a standard to point to that is outside of yourself. If you just say “well colors are whatever name I pick for them that make me feel good” then no one can communicate with each other using color names. Taxonomies aren’t a matter of scientific fact, they’re metaphysical constructs. The name “cat” isn’t based on scientific inquiry or material empiricism, it is just the name we gave to the fuzzy purring things that eat mice and barf up hairballs that like living in our houses.
We can ground the taxonomy in objective reality (wavelengths, the physical existence of the pet, etc), but the taxonomy itself is still constructed and agreed upon. Morals are no different, as shown above. You want someone to know that murdering is wrong, you have to have a rule that isn’t just your own personal whim that murdering is wrong in and of itself, not merely because you personally dislike it, or that you and others all got together to collectively say you dislike it.
If I’m going to discuss what is and isn’t moral, I’m not going to use the words “right” and “wrong” since they are overbroad, flimsy, and do more to obfuscate than they do clarify.
Morals are metaphysical rules that dictate how a moral agent ought to act in accordance to what is good.
Moral relativists/subjectivists reject universal moral truths in favor of local moral truths, with the understanding those truths are knowable/understandable.
Moral nihilists reject moral truths wholesale, with the understanding those truths either don’t exist or cannot be known/understood.
Moral relativism always gives way to nihilism if the relativist insists on avoiding universals like the plague. Everyone having their own private set of oughts and ought-nots is indistinguishable from everyone not giving a crap about whether there are any oughts and ought-nots in the first place.
The long and short of it is this: if a moral relativist objects to something someone is doing, be it Blizzard’s hiring practices, or Exxon’s environmental impact, or a country’s leadership going to war, the objection need not be taken seriously or addressed at all since the relativist is only objecting based upon their current whim, nothing more.