>>11016020>then this is bad
why? this isn't a fact. poor start. >good
what is that? you're making up your own definition to contrast your own system? sounds like this isn't based in natural fact.
A man kills nazis, that is good for jews but bad for nazis. It is relative to the victims or involved parties own pain, suffering, sadness and the negation of such. Therefore for it to be objective would be false. How can one event the murder of a nazi be both true and false, in that it's good and bad?
Let's take a hotter take, just to warm up our dick, aye?
it is seen as bad because it's killing a fetus. but the mother cares not for the fetus' well being. And let's say the society absolutely agrees. This is then utilitarian, accepted because it' pleases the greater people. Which is arbitrary people why would people be the highest value when measuring the importance of things?
of object in the universe when looking at the necessary things a living being needs, food is one. If an ant and a human are hungry they can eat one another. Which deserves to eat the other? It's unreasonable to say any deserves more life than the other. Deserve is based on value. ants and humans are both made of atoms, both are just things that exists, nothing proves value exists outside of a condition which gives it meaning within a specific frame of reference, so universally it doesn't hold.
Back to the fetus and the mother. We know that both don't matter, neither have a greater value than the other, in a global frame of reference. Either could die or suffer and it wouldn't matter.
Good? Bad? terms that depend of value existing. So they can apply but will not Globally.
Everyone can have there own moral philosophy, no rule they can't, but it will only be their own. Do not claim it is a universal truth.
I'll have my tea Camille, that is a preference. Beings like humans don't like to suffer because it's not usually advantageous 1