A Fear of Heaven

Originally Posted by CTCCPS

Erynis, good and bad are not "subjective" despite what your favorite dead philosopher said more than a hundred years ago.

sure they are. Do you think onions are good? Well, I think they're bad.

besides, I don't recall saying that they were subjective, actually. At least, not in this thread. It seems like you're just pulling stuff out of nowhere, stuff that doesn't really relate to anything that I just said.

also, I don't really keep up with philosophy, so I don't have any favorites.

Science has for the most part proven all of us (that is all of humanity)have a similar genetic concept of morality.

oh, so now we're talking about morality? Where are you getting all this? It has nothing to do with any of the arguments I was making in this thread.

indeed, thanks to evolution, people have a tendency to think alike and have similar morals.

that does not, however, mean that morality is objective.

Amoralism is the result of corruption and being bred to think in such a fashion (like in the Middle East for example).

amoralism, now? Man, we just keep jumping from topic to topic. First you're arguing that morality is not subjective, then you're arguing that amorality is bad. But fine, okay, I'll humor you.

first, show how amorality is the result of corruption. Then, tell me why the Middle East is a good example for what you're saying.

I'm afraid of such antiscientific concepts as subjectivism,

back to subjectivism now, okay. Do you mean subjectivism in general, or just ethical subjectivism? Also, how is this anti-scientific, again?

since it can only lead us down the road toward tyranny.

okay, so you say. Provide us with some reasoning for this point.

If everything is subjective than liberal democracy is a lie and the beautiful are the rightful benefactors of society and the ugly need to confirm to a higher standard.

okay, so you're talking about subjectivism in general ("if everything is subjective") and not just ethical subjectivism ("morals are subjective") now? I think you're just attacking straw men now. I don't think anyone in this thread said or implied that everything is subjective.

Remember, Hitler's philosophy was subjectivism. Ideology corrupts more than genes do.

oh, good, you made sure to throw that guilt by association fallacy in there at the end. Got to make sure that, just in case anyone disagrees with you, they realize that they're as bad as Hitler for doing so!

Originally Posted by erinys

I'm comparing this existing world to a world in which no bad exists. I see nothing wrong with doing that. Logic applies to any world.

Right, but your perspective is giving you a flawed view of this world. If you existed in that world, you wouldn't be able to distinguish good from bad because there is no bad. You only think you can distinguish the two because you are using the reasoning of a world that has both good and bad, thus the applicability is flawed.

good things are positive, positive things are good. I've already told you why good doesn't rely on bad.

I disagreed, I claimed that when bad is gone, you can only distinguish things as positive. This is so because good does rely on bad, and when one is removed, you can no longer tell what is good because you cannot know what is bad.

plus, couldn't you just go on to argue that positive relies on negative? It's the same argument.

It doesn't rely on it, because one can deduce that actions have a positive or negative effect on the world around them based on whether the benefit or harm whatever is being effected.

what does it matter? Not being able to make the distinction between good and bad doesn't mean that good doesn't exist, it just means that you don't know what good is. Being color blind doesn't mean that colors you can't distinguish don't exist, it just means you can't see them. Other people from outside your perspective still can see those colors that you cannot.

Right, but this is based on the assumption the other is non-existent, which is an entirely different story.

either way, I would say that being able to compare good to more good or less good is good enough. Not everything is going to be the same amount of good, so there will always be a way to compare and contrast.

Again, I believe this is where things are 'positive' and 'more positive' rather than good.

so it becomes less positive when you get more used to it, but I still say that positive and good are synonymous. Good things are positive and beneficial, positive and beneficial things are good.

That is a part of my point, that it will become so neutral, that without the contrast it lacks the ability to be good and to feel and look good. There are bad people, and good people. What do you call good people when there are no bad people?

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Right, but your perspective is giving you a flawed view of this world. If you existed in that world, you wouldn't be able to distinguish good from bad because there is no bad. You only think you can distinguish the two because you are using the reasoning of a world that has both good and bad, thus the applicability is flawed.

I don't think so. I think that a world without bad would be a good place. Perhaps people in that world would not think so, but that is only because they lack the proper experience (the experience of bad). I have the appropriate experience to make this comparison. If I existed in this world and then traveled to a world with no bad, keeping all my experience of this world, I would be able to distinguish good and bad still, even if there is no bad in that world. I would only be experiencing good, and I could compare it to my past experience of bad.

I disagreed, I claimed that when bad is gone, you can only distinguish things as positive. This is so because good does rely on bad, and when one is removed, you can no longer tell what is good because you cannot know what is bad.

and I still say that you can tell what is good because you can compare it to things that are not good, or not as good, or even more good.

It doesn't rely on it, because one can deduce that actions have a positive or negative effect on the world around them based on whether the benefit or harm whatever is being effected.

I say that one can deduce that actions have a good or bad effect on the world around them based on whether they benefit or harm whatever is being effected.

of course, you're just going to tell me that I should be using "positive/negative" rather than "good/bad" but then this again becomes an argument on semantics. I say they mean the same thing, you say they are different, but it's all just words in the end.

Again, I believe this is where things are 'positive' and 'more positive' rather than good.

and again I tell you that I do not distinguish between the two. I think you are making an unnecessary distinction. Apparently the only difference between positive and good, according to you, is that good relies on bad while positive does not rely on negative.

That is a part of my point, that it will become so neutral, that without the contrast it lacks the ability to be good and to feel and look good. There are bad people, and good people. What do you call good people when there are no bad people?

People.

I see this as a goal that should we should strive for. A time when there are no bad people, only people.