bartolomeo@suppo.fi to Memes@lemmy.ml · 1 year agoAll lives rulesuppo.fiimagemessage-square21fedilinkarrow-up18arrow-down17
arrow-up11arrow-down1imageAll lives rulesuppo.fibartolomeo@suppo.fi to Memes@lemmy.ml · 1 year agomessage-square21fedilink
minus-squarePunnyName@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0arrow-down1·1 year agoLiterally nothing is “good of its own merit”. Because literally nothing is intrinsically “good”. “Good” is a subjective idea, not objectively measurable, so it will always be in reference to another, i.e. relative.
minus-squarePunnyName@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoBoth are consistent within the confines of the definition.
minus-squareWallEx@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoMaybe for you that’s the case, I definitely have a definition of morally good and both sides aren’t that. Accepting collateral for example. You can’t be good in my book if you’re doing that, and they both did.
Literally nothing is “good of its own merit”. Because literally nothing is intrinsically “good”.
“Good” is a subjective idea, not objectively measurable, so it will always be in reference to another, i.e. relative.
Removed by mod
Both are consistent within the confines of the definition.
Maybe for you that’s the case, I definitely have a definition of morally good and both sides aren’t that. Accepting collateral for example. You can’t be good in my book if you’re doing that, and they both did.