> Sure, but existence can also be a -1, it’s not a simple binary.

It cannot, that makes zero sense. You can't have -1 peoples on the planet for example. Or -1 planets. You can have 9-1=8 planets however. But not 1-2=-1 planet.

> I’m not denying that joy can be present in a life, but suffering is always present, and quite frankly it’s all unnecessary.

Funny how you are here arguing suffering apparently is an objective truth and an universal constant, is it not? Do you seriously not see the paradox of that statement?

> Life didn’t always exist

Define life.

> So ethics and morality aren’t fundamental truths of existence, as one cannot apply these to non-life.

Nor is that its intention, that does not make them unable to be objective. It's a false equivalence.

> Mathematical relationships existed whether or not there was anybody to observe them.

I think quantum theory would like a word with you. But, that still does not argue that morality can't be objective. Just because we've thought of them, does not make them illogical or non objective.

> Sure, but that doesn’t make it negative overall. It’s also more like +/- 1 -/+ 1 = 0. Non-existence is neutral.

Sure, so living is a positive then. I figured you would've wanted me to express existance as a 0 (nihilism), hence my example.

> It does. Existance is not necessarily a positive.

Is 1 a positive?

> I’m pointing out that there will always be suffering in life, by definition.

It isn't, you fail to realize one needs to look at a net equation, is there more suffering than joy. You only focus on the suffering part. I can very much argue and focus solely on the joy part and then say that life is joyful and suffering is irrelevant to this discussion. It's creating an argument that denies one part that is very much integral to existing (as is suffering).

> Sure, ceasing to exist is negative to existence, but that doesn’t make it objectively a negative thing.

That makes no sense. Unless you view it from a universe perspective again, which isn't the point.

> I’m not saying there’s no positives, I’m just saying there is suffering. This suffering wouldn’t have been there if they hadn’t existed, and they also would have not desired or cared about these positives either.

Nor would there be joy if they hadn't existed. You're still arguing that existing is suffering, while existing is or can be joyous as well if not more so.

That's not a response at all. You're merely saying it isn't because you think it isn't, there isn't an argument in there. Nature itself is based on fundamental laws, your brain uses fundamental laws to work, your thoughts therefore are based on fundamental laws. It can of course reach faulty conclusions, or think 'different' based on different parameters used, creating the illusion of subjectivity.

I am not placing any value on it, I'm saying that ending existance is a negative to existance. That's objective. It's like saying 0-1=-1 is a negative.

We've been over this before. You're equating some hardship to suffering because by definition hardship is suffering. Yes, yet you fail to see that there are also joyful moments where for example they get to enjoy food, family, etcetera. Ergo, they may not in total, be suffering. If one argues that because they experience some hardship they therefore are suffering, I'll put forward that because they experience some joy, they are therefore joyous. It's nonsensical. It has nothing to do about subjectivity, you're using a false representation of what is, only looking at one side of the equation and therefore reaching an incomplete conclusion.

I'm not placing any subjective positive value on existance. Existance by its very nature is existing, ending such existance is a negative to said existance. That's objective.

A universe based on fundamental truths cannot create something that does not adhere by those fundamental truths. It's based on objectivity and thus we cannot suddenly have subjectivity. Differing opinions does not mean that it is therefore subjective, it means that the parameters have changed. For something good to one, can make it bad to another due to their internal parameters (their life). Where genocide of one species, can be good for another, it still is fundamentally bad for the species being genocided.

It is for the species itself. You're changing parameters by making it be about the universe at large.

You are adding on a parameter. If the species is getting non-viable due to overpopulation, a reduction in size is indeed not necessarily bad. It might be good. That's your parameter you work with to reach a logical conclusion. It doesn't change whether something cannot be objective or not, you just changed the prior equation and thus changed the logical conclusion. It's like having you change a 2+2=4 into a 2+2+1=5 and then argue the previous equation wasn't objective for there's a new result in the new equation.

You fail to see the point yet again. It's not about whether it's objectively bad for the universe at large. It's objectively bad, or a negative if you will, for the species itself. It's all in the limiting parameters that one can arrive at a logical conclusion.

No, it's not all opinion based at all. Like math, they're build upon logic. Not all may be arriving at the same logical conclusion though, but they may've erred, like one may in math. When there's multiple logically sound conclusions, then your limiting parameters in the question aren't sufficient. Like one can't know in certain equations whether x is positive or not.

And yes, I do know they will at some point go extinct. Is that not bad for the species itself? There's nothing subjective about that. Secondly, we are talking about a species genociding itself, not an outside force making them go extinct. So you're slippery sloping the argument.

Why? You haven't explained why it can't be so at all. In fact every building block in the world is based on those fundamental laws, so in essence, however complex we are we still are build and limited by it. Ergo, ethics and morality can therefore also be fundamental. One may consider something good, but be wrong. Exactly like someone who says 2+2=85 is wrong. Just because there are more opinions, doesn't negate the fact it can logically be a wrong opinion.

Also funny you speak of electrical signals as basis of our consciousness, if anything that proves my point.

Hahaha, well then our discussion is done. You clearly haven't understood the meaning of it. Your view is too black and white. At this point our argument will devolve in your position is nonsensical, no yours, no yours.

As for whether we invented it or not. Did we invent maths or are they part of fundamental truths of the universe? Why can't that hold for (parts of) morality or ethics?

On the basis of various examples within ethical objectivism, Plato's writings among others, and various things I've already said to you.

As for the tiger. Yes, they're also animals, as are we. And yet, as we're different species and different brains, we cannot lay down judgment. Goes for chimpanzees and any other animal you can think of. I thought that would've been more than obvious.

And it does make it objectively bad, for the tigers, which was the point.

That sounds awfully subjective whether they implied or not.

If you are a nihilism hardliner, then yeah, you would say so. I beg to differ by a lot.

Why would I judge the actions of a tiger? You cannot judge that which hasn't the same faculties as humans do. But, let's for the sake of argument do so, yes I'd say that genocide among tigers by tigers is also objectively wrong to do, as it hurts their species' viability.

I suggest you start reading about ethical objectivism. You've clearly skipped this part in philosophy.

He has missed his ethical objectivism class.

>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.

I think you missed the point of it being conditional... It's a very narrow view to think good or bad are entirely objective, it's also a very narrow view to think good or bad are entirely subjective. Conditions are which will decide whether something is subjectively or objectively good or bad.

As for whether life is 'sacred', it's why I added quotation marks around it. I don't mean it in the literal sense, I mean it in the conventions we've universally decided on.

> Your “maintaining well being” example is also flawed as that is also not objectively good.

Ah, it's flawed, yet I see no argument as to why. Interesting.

> 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.

Of course it's conditional, life is conditional. You can objectively say genocide is bad based on the conditions provided. And if that condition is that life is 'sacred' or whether genocide itself is outlawed, then you cannot but conclude that what is happening in Ukraine is objectively bad.

Exactly. It sounds like he's taking some of his philosophy teachings too stringent, and disregarding other philosophical teachings that do not say "bad and good are entirely subjective", but rather more nuanced.

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.

>Good and bad are not fact-based

It's objectively bad to drink bleach, to maintain well being.