(August 12, 2019 at 12:57 am)Acrobat Wrote:(August 12, 2019 at 12:34 am)Grandizer Wrote: It's out there implies it's physically there.
I'm not a naturalist, so I don't share that view, I'm of the opinion that what my mind sees as out there is out there, and what it perceives as in here is in here, regardless of whether it's physical or not, absent of any compelling reason to doubt a perception.
Quote:But there is no "out there" for that thing you call the good. I don't know what you're asking anymore. What illusion? Some acts truly are good or bad, regardless of how we feel. Something about the act is what makes it good or bad. If it harms, then we're generally going to intuit it as bad. If it promotes flourishing, we're going to generally intuit it as good. Nothing to do with your God, and nothing to do with personal feelings. We intuit the way we do because mainly evolution.
I agree there's a badness to harm, and goodness to promoting flourishing. But as indicated previously goodness and badness here are like stating the colors of these things, that's what I mean by it's truly good and truly bad here, that I am describing something objective, something out there, even if immaterial.
You may not agree with that, but you seem to reject that suggestion that goodness and badness here are an expression of your feelings, that badness just means your dislike and displeasure of harm, and goodness just indicated your liking, pleasure in the promoting of flourishing.
As a result you seem to be floating in some sort of limbo between the two.
It's not about like or dislike. It's wrong because ... Look what it does. What it does we reasonably consider to be bad. There is nothing to suggest that it is good.
I can consider something to be bad while sadistically liking it. I can consider something to be good while cynically being against it.