Join 68,000+ Looksmaxxing Members!
Register a FREE account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox.
It’s bad because of the social construct we set up and there’s no way out of it
guess
bla bla bla bla bla
it's you~!
what
nothing is bad because the bad doesn't exist.
Okay your using a loop hole to justify your argument, that’s what bad is something that lacks good making it a bad deed
no it doesn't make it bad. as i said it just lack of the good, it is closer to the material (potence) rather than the form (the actuality)
this seems like a metaphysical idea no? i thought i saw you in another thread saying you didnt agree with metaphysics
metaphysics is the greatest and deepest idea ever, it comes from it's definition.
yah thats true your point is a very old metaphysical idea.
we can objectively determine something's purpose without importing moral things because morality is only related to humans, so we can determine for example, book's property without importing moral things here because it's not a human.
so with your ideology we can conclude you believe wars, hitler, sexism, etc. arent bad?
it's not my ideology, i'm just describing the reality.
Yeah yeah just put the gun down sir
They aren’t even IF bad did exist
alr im not gna comment on the sexism part but i read a few other things you said and you said something about "bad" things only being called bad bc of the lack of good? then what does the lack of good mean to yiu is it neutral is it not good i dont understand what youre trying to prove here
i hope youre joking bc they are objectively bad. sure you can joke abt it i do too but in a serious matter its not even a debate
what do you mean by neutral? you can interpret the good as neutral as well and don't give a shit about it
well who decides what counts as a books purpose? is it what the author intended to convey? that implies objects dont have an intention independent of human intention.
humans just use their reason to extract something's purpose, for example book's purpose is just to be read.
in moral way someone is wrong is just when he does something that stops him or someone else from reaching flourishing/well being. that's it
i see. then this new way of looking at bad and good makes sense. this would probably lead a person to be more optimistic too
Prove it happened
JoinedFriday
This philosophical approach defines "evil" solely as the absence of good, but the situation is different for an unborn being. Bringing someone into the world who does not yet exist creates the potential for suffering, harm, and risk this is not merely the "absence of good" but an irreversible obligation. Evil things can be considered non-existent in abstract terms but ethically, the suffering inflicted on another is concrete and valuable with its consequences. Thus, evil is related to existence, and therefore the decision to give birth is debatable.
dude, evil is always abstract and never concrete, concrete things are material while what we call evil is an idea
To say that “evil is merely an abstract idea” is to ignore its real-world effects. Experiences such as pain, illness, trauma, and torture are tangible and measurable people feel them, and they have an impact on the body and mind. Although evil is defined as an abstract idea, the consequences it creates produce tangible and irreversible harm. Ethical responsibility is concerned precisely with these consequences, not with the idea itself.
Something goatis would say to justify trying to disfigure his ex
am i wrong
