history_fan40 t1_j6a4f8p wrote on January 28, 2023 at 9:17 PM

Reply to comment by vkstu in Ukraine: ‘Fast-track’ talks underway for missiles, planes by bluelotus214

Things can be neither good nor bad (and objectively, they are always neither of those). But if you want me to name one thing I would consider a positive, if it is done, the people it is being done to would never suffer again. I don’t support it, because this is selective, which means treating groups unequally with no reason, which I don’t agree with. So no, I don’t consider it good.

However, nothing can be objectively wrong no matter what it is, because “wrong” is a subjective statement, just as “right” or “good” are.

vkstu t1_j6a4wrp wrote on January 28, 2023 at 9:21 PM

You're wrong.

As I replied to another post of yours, you can very well make objectively good and bad statements.

It is objectively good to keep hydrated to maintain well being. For example.

> If it is done, the people it is being done to would never suffer again.

Making a huge assumption here that they are or were suffering before being genocided. So that's adding a precondition that isn't necessarily so to the question asked.

history_fan40 t1_j6a6zvr wrote on January 28, 2023 at 9:35 PM

> it is objectively good to keep hydrated to maintain well being

Using that logic, it is objectively good to invade countries to expand your territory.

“Maintaining well being” cannot be considered objectively good. Nothing can, just as nothing can be considered objectively bad.

> assumption that they are or were suffering

Not an assumption, everybody that exists suffers. If you doubt that, suffering is literally defined as “the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship”. One technically undergoes hardship while trying to get food, which one needs in order to live.

vkstu t1_j6a7k9s wrote on January 28, 2023 at 9:39 PM

> Using that logic, it is objectively good to invade countries to expand your territory.

No, because you in this case subjectively add that expanding territory is always a positive. It may not be for multitude of reasons. Not hydrating yourself properly is never a positive for your well being.

> Not an assumption, everybody that exists suffers.

Ah, a nihilism hardliner are we? Most people would put the cons and pros against each other to decide whether they're suffering in life, rather than only look at the bad to decide they're suffering.

history_fan40 t1_j6a8hbg wrote on January 28, 2023 at 9:46 PM

> you in this case subjectively add

You’re also subjectively adding that “maintaining well being” is a positive in your example.

> decide whether they’re suffering

I already showed that everyone suffers by definition. That is true regardless of whether or not they view their lives as a net positive, a net negative, or neutral.

vkstu t1_j6a91zc wrote on January 28, 2023 at 9:50 PM

>You’re also subjectively adding that “maintaining well being” is a positive in your example.

That's not what subjective means. Expanding territory is in this case meant as always being a positive, which doesn't have to be so. Well being is clearly defined, your body dying is not maintaining well being. Hence always objectively good and bad by the condition provided. I think you've missed the part of philosophical teachings regarding good and bad that states regarding health issues and a few other things it can very well be made to be objective.

>I already showed that everyone suffers by definition. That is true regardless of whether or not they view their lives as a net positive, a net negative, or neutral.

You have not. You implied all people suffer by definition, but that is not the case. People suffer when they have more hardship to deal with than pleasure they feel. You're looking at it from a very nihilistic and negative view, that any bit of hardship means people suffer. If we follow your reasoning, I can also argue all people are joyous. For they have moments in their life that are joyful, tasting food for example.