(April 9, 2015 at 7:24 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: If it has to be helpful for society then it's not subjective, but objective. It is helpful for society regardless if a society recognizes it or not.
But the the goodness I use is not dependant on the mind. My goodness can be applied to a colony of bacteria, no consciousness required. (Just a clarification: I don't believe you can have something objective when it depends on minds. A goodness that depends on the mind cannot be objective. Yet, an objective good can exist.)
Quote:Of course, it can be helpful for a society to conquer another nation...does it make it good? For example they would acquire land or goods or riches, does it make good?
I answered this already. When two societies collide, you should consider them as two parties part of a larger society. What is good is what would benefit the greater society. The view from any individual group would be biased and would not properly determine what is good.
Quote:I don't see anything wrong with the beauty argument but I don't think you can plug anything into it.
For example, God can decide what is going to taste salty and create it and it would not make saltiness arbitrary. And ultimate saltiness is not included in the definition of saltiness because there is a limit to how salty something can be as far our taste goes in our mind.
I do believe objective beauty exists, and that objective full beauty is God.
After all, Quran emphasized "to him belong the beautiful names" and has called one of his appointed guides, "the beautiful".
So any quality that depends on a mind would work: dickishness, awesomeness, sexiness, annoiness, creepiness, etc?
The heart of your argument is faulty because you're conflating application of a concept to the past to it existing in the past. A mind can always judge the past by some standard, that doesn't mean that standard existed in the past.
