Good and Bad-What is the difference?

Why do I ask the question...well there is MYSTERIOUS output for Philosophy and Science with item 2.

If there is a difference then what is that difference?

Philosophy and Science have been too pre-occupied with the POSSIBILITY that there is no difference.

This shows UNAWARENESS!!!!

Speaking sole in terms of matematical correctness.

You are missing two other possibilities.

Nietzsche said that there were two moral systems:

Good-Bad, which originally designated high-low or noble-vulgar
and
Good-Evil, in which an adversary is viewed as unholy or unclean somehow or other.

He called the one Master Morality and the other Slave Morality.

Go on then….what are they?

What do you think of the 2 off ABSOLUTE possibilities that good is good and bad is bad?

Good is good and bad is good (I happen to like the "it's all good" hypothesis)

Good is bad and bad is bad (which is the pessimist option)

I think it's all good.

IS it good on first?

Maybe not if there is a difference between good and bad.

Mainstream philosophy and science assumes that there is no difference between good and bad...but it is only an assumption.

Which brings me back to the original question ...why does mainstream philosophy and science only recognise good is bad and bad is good as ABSOLUTES?

This has zero to do with science, unless you can define "goodness" in a way that can be tested experimentally.

I disagree.....we are part of science...all sciences are interconnected.Why do you say it has zero to do with science?....it has everything to do with science.We are not separate from science.

Equally, it has not been tested or proven experimentally that good and bad are the same so why do people say there are?

Which brings me back to my original question at the very start.

You are being silly. There is zero meaning in anything you have said on this thread because you are using terms with no definition.


Good and bad can mean whatever you want them to mean. Until you define them, you cant say anything meaningful. It is just nonsence.

I have a good clear definition for the word "science". Science, as I define it, is the set of things that can be tested expirementally. Fortunately my definition of science conforms to what is done by scientists and what is taught in science class. I dont really understand what uou think science is.

If we dont agree on the basic meaning of words, than having any intelligent discussion is futile.

Are you saying good is bad and if so, why?

Why do you assume this?

I’m not being silly at all.

I am asking a perfectly sensible question.

The fact that you cannot answer it is the more interesting output.

Good is not Bad, they are totally different is another reasonable assumption.

I am being a bit unfair with you....because you will not be able to come up up with a single reason to defend why good IS definitely Bad.Not a single thing.

Therefore,I’m merely asking why anyone assumes that good and bad are the same without equally assuming that good and bad are totally different.

Because bad is a "subjective" term. It has no definition.

Until you define the word, it is a silly question.

Good and bad are emotional terms. They specify an opinion. There is nothing that is inherently good or bad. They are just whatever someone says they are based on the context.

I have poisoned, glued and snapped the necks of mice in my house, because mice are bad. My niece has pet mice that she loves because mice are good.

Most of the universe doesn't have an opinion on mice.

It is equally silly/ foolish to assume something to be fact when it IS only a possibility.

Hence, because it is only a possibility...good and bad are different is a another reasonable possibility and not silly at all.

You are only giving your opinion and showing your emotions by claiming good and bad are the same.

You are assuming that they are the same because you can do no more than this.

There is the equal possibility that they are not the same because any individual can assume this as well.

Both possibilities should be considered together and applied to both science and philosophy.

What do you feel about the words "beautiful" and "ugly".

We could get into big arguments about whether beautiful and ugly are the same.... and whether beuatiful is ugly or ugly is beautiful.

In the end, just like "good" and "bad" they are just a matter of personal opinion.

I referred to absolutes in my original question.

One cannot claim that good is bad and bad is good as an absolute....one can ONLY assume it to be an absolute.

One might not know the difference between good and bad (as an absolute) but one should recognise the POSSIBILITY that there is a difference and that difference IS an absolute.

Ok.

I declare that beautiful is ugly as an absolute.

If you are talking about an absolute, than there is no possibility.