What makes something "good"? For example, what makes giving to the poor a "good" action? What makes a book "good"?

What makes something "good"? For example, what makes giving to the poor a "good" action? What makes a book "good"?

What makes something "bad"? For example, why is murder considered "bad"? What makes a song sound "bad"?

An opinion. That's all it takes.

Then do you believe in anarchy? If everyone has their own moral values, many will go around killing, raping, stealing, etc. We obviously can't have that anywhere at the moment because of constricting laws that are based off of a common view of what is morally right and what is morally wrong. Is anarchy what the way to go?

yes

what's an opinion

Is anything inherently wrong or right? Or is it all 100% opinion based?

Good and bad are artificial constructs created by the human mind to feel better about their actions taken.

A subjective view based off of one's own beliefs, experiences, and judgement.

So nothing is right, and nothing is wrong?

Well interpersonally, because we're social animals, actions such as working well with or supporting others are considered good, because the group and its constituents generally benefit.

As for quality of media, originality, cohesiveness, and realistic characters are some pretty commonly accepted good qualities, because it makes the story interesting and easier to "get lost in". But other qualities that people judge vary relative to personal taste.

looks more complicated and nuanced than calling it just an opinion.

What about outliers who don't want to work with humanity for it's gain? Is that bad? Is it bad because they are not helping everyone else, and they are too selfish to work for themselves? Is it bad because humanity wants to help them, but they are rejecting the help?

He asked what an opinion is.

things that i like: good
things i don't like: bad

If I like to fuck dead babies does that make it good?

no, because i don't like the thought of you fucking a dead baby.

That's where the conflict begins. Do you mean that you are the supreme judge of what is good and what is bad?

It's a little shitty, but they usually don't have any profound effect on a group, so it's mostly their loss, I'd say.

in ur eyes

But does that make it bad?

>Do you mean that you are the supreme judge of what is good and what is bad?

kinda

What you are saying is that if I like something, it is good FOR ME. Is there anything that makes something universally good or bad??

actually killing someone for no reason is wrong. no opinion can change this.

In a small amount.

If one were to kill you, what would determine whether something is good or bad?

What is the justification for that statement? What makes this universally true? Why is this based off of fact but everything else based off of opinion?

I mean look, it's one of those things that can only exist if perceived. Nothing matters cosmically, but this matters to other people and that's something to take into account while you're here, being a people.

idk, my bff jill

Does this mean that nothing is good or bad? Is what we see as "good" or "bad" just put there by society to control our beliefs and actions?

because there is no logical reason to kill someone who didnt harm you in any way. and this is the only universally bad action.

What justifies your ruling? Or after yours, Jill's?

isnt* goddamnit

But it could invoke natural selection, that person was either not strong enough, didn't have fast enough reflexes, or was a big enough asshole to get you to convince someone to murder them. If you see it that way it can be considered good
>inb4 but the evolutionary advantage is minuscule, it's one death out of 7 trillion people
Is giving a homeless man $10 not minuscule? That's considered good by most people.

By the way, I don't actually believe all murder should be legal to make us evolve, I was just proving the point that good and evil are not absolute, it depends on how someone see things. While the point of view shifts, everything else does as well.

this thread is interesting and all but i kinda feel like op tries to be vsauce a bit too much.

>What justifies your ruling?

you confuse me

So what if they didn't do anything to harm you? What if they want to die but are too afraid to pull the trigger themselves, so they get you to do it for them? What if you find out they have been killing other people, but have not harmed you in anyway, and you want to end their fit of murder? Will this always be wrong?

If that person was suicidal you would be increasing the net happiness of the community by killing them.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It's still beneficial not to be an asshole because then people will likely not be assholes to you. That's not a construct of "society" it's just a logical system for social animals

Why is your word final and permanent , and Jill's after yours?

What about fucking a newborn infant?

still don't see what you're getting at

This is an autistic thread.

also wrong since it harms the baby. their vaginas are too small and tight. it could die. otherwise nothing universally wrong with it.

trust me the parents of that kid would not be happy at all.

i mean a standard guy. a normal norman. 100% average. there is no logical reason to kill him.

What if you are completely unattached from society, with no social interaction with humans at all? What if you live on an island with a farm and are fully self sustaining? So what if people are an asshole to you anyways? Does that mean you are a bad person, or committed a bad act? So what if you are an asshole to them? You say it's a logical system for social animals, but not everyone's view of what is logical is the same.

Nice

Nothing is god or evil, but thinking makes it so.

However, there are some general patterns amongst the masses of humans.

>if it causes someone to feel bad, it's bad
>if it causes someone to feel good, it's good
>if it's a bad thing happening to a bad person, it's not as bad
>if it's a bad thing happening to a good person, it's worse

>their vaginas are too small and tight.
I didn't come to this thread expecting to fap.

So what? People are sad all the time. People lose family members all the time. What if their parents are dead? They can't care, they are dead.

It's still natural selection. Normal is not strong or fast enough

Is harming another wrong or bad? Why?

Holy shit it's perfect.

That's way too broad of a statement. There are countless examples of times it can be bad and just as many of times it can be good

if he harmed others the justice system will take care of him and eventually even kill him. people who kill should be killed. and suicidal people may change their mind. no one should make a descision that big for someone other than themself.

Not natural selection. Nature did not choose them to die, you did. While I do not disagree with you, this is an example of survival of the fittest. They were not fit enough to fight you off.

as long as you have a reason (and not just "i didnt like his headshape" or some shit) like that he killed your brother its ok to harm the person. if you dont have a reason its wrong.

If completely detached, then no, there's not much bad you can do.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, being an asshole is kind of by definition unpleasant or even harmful to others, so people generally prefer if someone isn't to them. Being an asshole generally causes others to return in kind. Some people are gonna be like that no matter what, but one will usually experience less of that if they're not one themselves.

Regardless of your view of logic, it's just an observable fact that social animals always have some system of Dos and Do Nots, which indicates that the concept or good/bad behavior isn't necessarily made up by humans.

kill them with your bare fists in a fair 1 on 1 combat then maybe. but if you just shoot him its not natural selection. because not even the rock could survive 3 shots to the chest a desert eagle.

forgot a "with"

Does this mean that the justice system is 100% perfect in it's moral code and everyone should believe what is used to justify the government's actions? Why should killers be killed? If you kill a killer, by your logic, would you not be a killer and deserve to be a killer? Suicidal people can not change their minds after they are dead. And I am not saying that it was your choice to kill them. They picked you to kill them because they did not have the courage to do so.

Why is it wrong? What is the justification for your statement?

So because we believe something is not to be done it is wrong?

Not the user you replied to, but he lacked the awareness, and intelligence to apply said awareness.

He lacked the intelligence to obtain enough knowledge, and he lacked the intelligence to work with the knowledge in order to calculate when he is likely to need said awareness.

Also, you don't try to dodge the bullet, you use timing and speed, accompanied with fine attention to detail to dodge the trigger pull.

If you survive long enough, you may find that your opponent telegraphs his (and or her) shots.

the justice system in most first world countries is almost flawless. and murderers who get killed deserve it and the killer of the murderer doesnt count as a criminal because he cleansed the world of someone evil.

Is that natural selection?

because you have no logical reason.

what the fuck are even talking about how can you dodge a bullet aimed at your chest?

it's all subjective, for example if you keep giving to homeless bums who hang out at mcdonalds, but they are encouraged to come there because they keep getting stuff there and then they shit in the dumpster and piss off the mcdonalds and the mcdonalds guy has to clean their shit then it is bad to give to the poor in that case. a record could be good to one person and shit to another based on their taste, beliefs and preferences. murdering a criminal in defense or executing them for murder is considered good, but murdering an innocent is considered bad.

With each person dead, there is a death in potential.
All people have potential, be it potential for good, or potential for evil; often, potential for both.

With so many factors contributing to outcomes amongst humans, we have no way to know for sure whether or not someone will have come upon their death, holding a basket of net evil or net good.
Good people don't stay good forever; evil people don't stay evil forever
(they can, however).

What makes it flawless? If the president can pardon anyone who has done anything because they have relations to them, is that not a flaw? Why do murderers deserve to be killed? What makes somebody evil?

You don't dodge the bullet, you look for the tell that telegraphs the shot, and you time your move just right so the shot doesn't hit you.
It's like poker, but more exciting and fast paced.

Depending on the factors at play, you'll use your opportunity to close the distance and attack, or get the fuck out of there.
If you plan and obtain your revenge, it ends up being the other guy getting naturally selected.

Often, but not necessarily. Because of how humans are, they are still prone to flipping out about shit because they learned to, rather than because it has any actual effect on them or others.

I think the basic concept of morality is relatively ingrained, and something to take seriously, but there are a lot of ways to assess or interpret the actual details.

We are of biology, and that which is biological is natural, right?
Therefore, what we do is natural, no?
When we make something artificial, is it not natural, for we (that which is of nature) had made it, so it occurred naturally, no?

Bet you have a katana collection, faggot

Why does that matter? Do you need a logical reason to make something not wrong? Many peoples' logic differs from each others'. If you kill someone because you think "I am conducting an experiment. I want to see how long it takes for someone to die after three shots to the stomach. I am doing this for science, so I can benefit humanity with this information." Is it not wrong due to their logic? Or is your logic supreme to theirs?

>It is illegal for a bar to sell cold sodas in Illinois
>Cannibalism is legal in every state of America except Idaho
There are plenty of examples of flawed (whether stupid or amoral) in western countries

Because we are natural, if we nuke China, it's natural?

>"good"
Ethics; morals.
>"bad"
Ethics; morals.
>song sound "bad"
When it functionally is no longer a song that registers to the human brain, the means of determining this more lengthy than I care to type.
>book "good"
A lot of that is subjective. But it must by definition be a well-known or "attention-grabbing" book at the very least. It must also be a book at the very least as well.

But in the end I do not believe in any real, natural existence of "good" and "bad", so if you are asking me to find "goodness" or "badness", I would tell you that this was an impossible task.

No, but I have a small collection of melee weaponry, along with martial arts training gear.

Yes.
No.
In their own respects, both are right, for what is relies upon definitions.
Definitions are agreed upon meanings, and there is no true mutual agreement upon meanings.
Natural, artificial, in the end, these mean nothing.

>these mean nothing
They mean everything, as well.

Life is quite pretty, isn't it?

OP here. Thank you all for your time. I was the one asking all the questions. I needed clarification. I just get pissed off with people trying to justify their actions with their opinions and morals. Have a good night.

I have no strong feelings one way or the other.

That depends on how you define "stong," am I right?
lol
>ba, dum, tis

>no strong feelings
That sounds a bit like depression (depending on how you define "depression," kek).

>tfw I'm probably depressed
>tfw I havn't been truly happy for years
>(depending on how you define happy)
At least I can still amuse myself with humor.

Point of view.

All I know, is that my heart says maybe.

Me, too, user; me, too.

Good things are good.
Bad things are bad
Bad things can sometimes be good if we justify them.
Good things can be bad when seen from a different point of view.
About the only rules that are absolute are the laws of physics. Everything else is up to interpretation, personal preference, circumstances, etc....

All's fair in log and war

Good gives me boner
Bad gives me prostate throb, makes me want to get fucked in the ass

“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.”

...

Are you seriously asking because I can explain it to you if you really want to know...

It has to do with inherent order in the fabric, or structure of the Universe.

Its what the occult is all about.

...

It's subjective unless you live by some kind of absolute moral code.

I see things that harm others to be immoral. I guess that's the same as bad.

>Goodrick-Clarke suggested that the varied forms of occultism share "a strong desire to reconcile the findings of modern natural science with a religious view that could restore man to a position of centrality and dignity in the universe".