(August 15, 2019 at 12:32 pm)Acrobat Wrote:(August 15, 2019 at 12:27 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Objectiveness is a redundant word if it is being implied, in context, that "good" or "bad" is objective.
No it isn't, particularly when some people view good and bad as subjective, and good and bad in non-moral context is often subjective, like pizza taste.
And in particular this discussion, is about the "objective" nature of goodness.
Quote:You indicated, you said so, you asserted, you did not demonstrate. And I did not concede that "good/bad" aren't linked to the act, only that "good/bad" do not exist concretely on the act (as in there's no specific location as it's just a descriptor).
Try again.
You conceded that good and bad are not located within any scientific fact, in fact you said they're not located anywhere (at least within the natural world).
Yet you still view good and bad as objective. If they're objectiveness is not located anywhere in the natural facts of reality, then where else would they be located, expect in something non-natural?
They're descriptors. They exist as part of the natural world as descriptors, not as objects with specific physical locations. But if you really, really want me to give the "location" of "good/bad", it's in the act itself.
So where is the part where you showed that "good" exists apart from the natural?
