There is nothing Good or Bad

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Let's not forget that good and bad can apply to any system of values, not just morality. Moral goodness and badness only represents one type of goodness and badness.

For example, a certain person may value a pizza as good. That would fall under the category of culinary taste and not morality.

I do not think anyone can say that no values exist, because the foundation of consciousness rests on making value judgments. In other words, to make a conscious decision, a creature must have a way of valuing the different options.

That necessary valuing could work in a subjective manner, in that the creatures values depend purely on their own preferences, which come from their psychological reaction to certain stimuli.

At root, I think you have all attempted to answer the question of whether moral values exist, not of whether any values exist. Personally, I would say that no morality does exist that we cannot reduce to amorality.

Thanks,
Scott

[Sinkhole2012]

"Wouldn't that commit you to accepting DanteAzrael's argument that good and bad do exist, but that it's a matter of metaphysics and not ethics?"

Exactly because good and bad have to do with mental functions that are directly connected to the biological states of pain and pleasure, they shouldn't be connected to metaphysics(ontology etc) but to psychology or ,lets say, individualism.
About the existance of them, I would almost agree they way you put DanteAzrael's argument (if this is what he meant). Nevertheless as I said something painful may be pleasurable to someone else, because they interrelate with states of mind.
Now, if you think that a concept of the mind is something existant, you are right...
In my opinion they aren't.(haha...nice one, eh?)

Isn't it logically inconsistent to say that something painful might be pleasurable to an individual?

Because, if these experiences are subjectively experienced then it is pleasure for the individual, i.e. if I see someone slashing their arms for fun, I'd probably think, "Wow, that's got to hurt."

However, the arm cutter would not be experiencing pain per se if they're also gleaning pleasure from it.

Now there's an interesting question for you my Epicurean friend...if a person derives pleasure from a physical or psychological stimulus can it even be considered pain.

I think at that point we'd have to make a distinction between what we mean by pain, i.e. a biologically-based response and a psychological appraisal.

By the way, I think the accuracy of discourse in this thread would be helped if we did not use the terms pain and pleasure synonymously with good and bad.

[Samhains]

"Wouldn't that commit you to accepting DanteAzrael's argument that good and bad do exist, but that it's a matter of metaphysics and not ethics?"

Exactly because good and bad have to do with mental functions that are directly connected to the biological states of pain and pleasure, they shouldn't be connected to metaphysics(ontology etc) but to psychology or ,lets say, individualism.
About the existance of them, I would almost agree they way you put DanteAzrael's argument (if this is what he meant). Nevertheless as I said something painful may be pleasurable to someone else, because they interrelate with states of mind.
Now, if you think that a concept of the mind is something existant, you are right...
In my opinion they aren't.(haha...nice one, eh?)

LOL YA NICE ROUND ABOUT! LOL

No I still would not agree..lol because metaphysics is just a branch of philosophy, and philosophy is a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs, and a system of priciples is created in the mind...in the thinking...Thus there is nothing Good or bad only thinking makes it so*

I still think that all you ever do or experience are simply one of two things, pain or pleasure, and nothing more. Everything els is ruled under these two offices. Offices that extend PAST the range of thought. As one does not need to know the word pain to understand pain, a deaf mute will know that if he doesn't keep working under the masters eyes that pain is sure to follow, when it does he know that more pain will follow if work is not continued, or corrected he knows he has done something displeasing to the master..thus PERCIEVED as BAD, but is not.

No words, feeling of sentsations..

[Sinkhole2012]

LOL YA NICE ROUND ABOUT! LOL

No I still would not agree..lol because metaphysics is just a branch of philosophy, and philosophy is a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs, and a system of priciples is created in the mind...in the thinking...Thus there is nothing Good or bad only thinking makes it so*

That is nearly 100 % incoherent.

Yes, metaphysics is traditionally considered an area of philosophical inquiry...as is ethics.

Philosophy is not a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.

I nearly choked on my tea when I read this, because the humor is so acute. You're talking about metaphysics as it pertains to practical affairs.

I am not sure how you define practical, but the nature of space, time, and causality typically do not come to mind when I think about the word practical.

Nor can I find the direct, causal (and logical) link between the idea that systems are engineered in the mind therefore good and bad do not exist.

I still think that all you ever do or experience are simply one of two things, pain or pleasure, and nothing more.

What about sociopaths who lack emotional responses to events?

Do their experiences also fall under the umbrella of pain and pleasure?

What about abstract thought? When we engage in philosophical inquiry it's somehow an extension of pain or pleasure?

The entire human experience can be boiled down to drives and behaviors resulting from pain and pleasure? Such a complex world view.

I'm sure it makes thinking easy when you can always, in any situation and concerning any act or experience, conclude well some people enjoyed it and some did not and that's that.

What an analgesic world-view.

Everything els is ruled under these two offices. Offices that extend PAST the range of thought. As one does not need to know the word pain to understand pain

So if you contend that pain exists because it can be experienced independent of language, of the word pain, then can't you also say that bad exists, because children (and even animals) can express empathy, remorse, and even guilt at their actions despite their lack of the corresponding grammar?

[Samhains]

LOL YA NICE ROUND ABOUT! LOL

No I still would not agree..lol because metaphysics is just a branch of philosophy, and philosophy is a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs, and a system of priciples is created in the mind...in the thinking...Thus there is nothing Good or bad only thinking makes it so*

That is nearly 100 % incoherent.

Yes, metaphysics is traditionally considered an area of philosophical inquiry...as is ethics.

Philosophy is not a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.

I nearly choked on my tea when I read this, because the humor is so acute. You're talking about metaphysics as it pertains to practical affairs.

I am not sure how you define practical, but the nature of space, time, and causality typically do not come to mind when I think about the word practical.

Nor can I find the direct, causal (and logical) link between the idea that systems are engineered in the mind therefore good and bad do not exist.

I still think that all you ever do or experience are simply one of two things, pain or pleasure, and nothing more.

What about sociopaths who lack emotional responses to events?

Do their experiences also fall under the umbrella of pain and pleasure?

What about abstract thought? When we engage in philosophical inquiry it's somehow an extension of pain or pleasure?

The entire human experience can be boiled down to drives and behaviors resulting from pain and pleasure? Such a complex world view.

I'm sure it makes thinking easy when you can always, in any situation and concerning any act or experience, conclude well some people enjoyed it and some did not and that's that.

What an analgesic world-view.

Everything els is ruled under these two offices. Offices that extend PAST the range of thought. As one does not need to know the word pain to understand pain

So if you contend that pain exists because it can be experienced independent of language, of the word pain, then can't you also say that bad exists, because children (and even animals) can express empathy, remorse, and even guilt at their actions despite their lack of the corresponding grammar?

You MIS read it I was not saying that med was this but that philosophy was a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs. Not the other way around.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
phi·los·o·phy /fɪˈlɒsəfi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fi-los-uh-fee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -phies. 1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
2. any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.
3. a system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza.
4. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
5. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.
6. a philosophical attitude, as one of composure and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances.

[Sinkhole2012]

You MIS read it I was not saying that med was this but that philosophy was a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs. Not the other way around.

Well, if philosophy is a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs and if metaphysics is just a branch of philosophy (as you stated), then how can you say that metaphysics does not conform to the same definition?

That makes no logical sense.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
phi·los·o·phy /fɪˈlɒsəfi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fi-los-uh-fee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -phies. 1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
2. any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.
3. a system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza.
4. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
5. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.
6. a philosophical attitude, as one of composure and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances.

Here's your problem and I have already warned you about this: if you want to be a philosopher, then stop relying on Merriam-Webster (or any dictionary) for your arguments.

The definition you highlighted (number five) does not refer to academic philosophy, i.e. definitions one and two.

The definition you chose to use refers to the mundane. For example, most businesses have a "philosophy."

Here's an example: http://www.mckeefoods.com/Business_Phil ... efault.htm

That's a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.

[anarchyisbliss]

I agree with the poster there is no such thing as good or bad for everything just maybe what you personally think and no one has the right to dictate what is good or bad for everyone