I don't use such terms in my vocabulary because there is too much «subjective» baggage involved where one being's idea of good is deemed by another to be bad; the most-objective vocabulary that I use instead is to distinguish between Punitive-Authoritarian versus Free-Will-Permitting; anything else along the lines of «good versus evil» or «good versus bad» will just result in idiots who INSIST that «you MUST have evil for good to exist» so that they can «justify» their parasitic-behaviours and who ACTUALLY BELIEVE in the following slogan... : «War is Peace. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery.»

And now I am going to quote someone from elsewhere which is definitely going to get me put on some sort of so-called terrorist-watch list if I am not on such a thing already (all the better to fill-up my communications with links to The Testament of Truth though so that the «watching» can read about how their very own «terrorist» activities are what is leading them into the Eternal-Abyss as written and described and warned of by the very returned/re-incarnated Spirit-of-Truth himself that many know of as Jesus himself when he was here the previous time during his previous-life avatar)...

「Next, the new NKVD come for you.
Preemptive Cure for Communism by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956」

Ok Manuel, my first thought is simple...

What you've listed alongside those words are not 'definitions', they're 'examples'.

Also, they're very black and white.

"Any other definition would be morally wrong."

You can't really use the same word (or synonym) as part of its definition.

(NB - a) my BA was a double major in philosophy, and b) I taught a subject called Theory of Knowledge. so, yeah, I'm going to nitpick!)

@Aeius - I'm pretty sure using the T-word is what gets you put onto T-word watch lists... not simply quoting Solzhenitsyn.

Dude, good people aren't punitive, nor do bad people permit free-will;
You just proved my very point about the «subjectivity» of those words...

Dude, if you damage my property, e.g. my car, and refuse to give redress, I will get punitive for the simple fact that doing harm to others without rectifying it should not be tolerated.

And bad people will permit free-will as long as it benefits them. A simple example would be politicians, or drug dealers.

The terms are objective in morality related contexts, and subjective in any other context.

The real problem is when people don't know what a moral context is, because they have no idea of objective morality or reject it for egoistic reasons.

"because they have no idea of objective morality"

I don't know what objective morality is... (although, obviously, I have some vague idea of the concept of it - but, like you posted in the other thread, 'knowing' this doesn't actually mean it exists).

However, getting more to the point - what's the relevance of damaging your property to a being that is simply able to create a new one with barely a thought?

"I don't know what objective morality is..."

You own yourself. This is objectively correct and therefore right. Slavery puts foward the claim that you don't own yourself. This is objectively incorrect and therefore wrong. Really easy to understand.

"like you posted in the other thread, 'knowing' this doesn't actually mean it exists"

I didn't post that.

"However, getting more to the point - what's the relevance of damaging your property to a being that is simply able to create a new one with barely a thought?"

That being must want to do that in order to be good.

Sorry for the relatively late reply... (wouldn't it be great if this forum would actually let us track replies???)

"This is objectively incorrect and therefore wrong. "

I don't think you grasp the idea of "objectively", nor have a clear definition of "wrong" that's not going to be problematic.

"You own yourself. This is objectively correct and therefore right. Slavery puts foward the claim that you don't own yourself. This is objectively incorrect and therefore wrong. Really easy to understand."

It's easy-ish to understand from a linguistic point of view. The words generally make sense. However, not from an actual moral philosophy perspective.

What I don't get is the idea that it is "objective" rather than "subjective", and what 'You", "own" and "yourself" actually mean!

There are simple dictionary definitions of these words... but when you dive deeper, one starts to find problems. And thus, not really easy to understand.

One clear example is that a being may have basically chosen to incarnate here on Earth. Now, what if that entity has chosen to do so in order to experience the concept of 'slavery', sot it can grow its understanding?

And if I am serving Adolph Hitler rather than myself ?
And if I am serving the Punitive-Authoritarian Corporate-Government rather than myself ?

Yes, they contradict the meanings/definitions of the examples, but, without having everybody being able to agree on the meaning and examples, the subjectivity remains; the «Pharisees» just like today's «philanthropists» (*cough*Bill*cough*Gates*cough*) certainly «donate to charity» and are therefore «serving others» (or at least making themselves look like they are)

Or perhaps if I «delusionally» believe that I am «serving God» (who we should know by know were just a bunch of aliens of ancient-times) by going about «proselytizing» to everybody in a(n) Evangelical-Fundamentalist manner then I am clearly «serving others» or «serving another» (God in my mind) rather than serving myself (although at the deepest-levels of things it's really just a case of people who are so consumed by their «need» to think that they're «right» that they become «apologists» [so-called Defenders of the Faith] who end up playing gymnastics-with-semantics in order to force reality to fit their beliefs rather than accept the reality of the evidence that is clearly and obviously before them for them to examine in an honestly empirical-manner).

And those examples that you provided are literally that of the difference between Spiritual-Light versus Spiritual-Dark which have exact-opposite traits due to being of exact-opposite polarities so we can say whether the activity aligns with the Spiritual-Light or is otherwise in alignment with the traits of the Light Sovereign Power or we could contrast it against Spiritual-Darkness which are all of the negative inter-actions that result in and/or cause suffering and is thus in alignment with the traits of the Dark Sovereign Power.

ALL «movement» and inter-action requires «energy» and at the core-consciousness-level there are only TWO Energies that are of Twin-Polarities and if one says things like «Orange Man Bad» and that «Kamala Harris» is good for society or that the MSM tells the truth then at that point there is in fact some Energy being Expressed and if Expressed in a Direct-Interaction then some Energies at that point are even being exchanged; for a description and examples from the writings of the very returned (re-incarnated) Imam Al-Mahdi himself... a document about these energies and their traits and their use and the consequences for their use are available for reading at this document... http://www.the-testament-of-truth.com/islam/web/energy.htm

Ok, first thoughts....

Firstly, the problem with black and white thinking is that it doesn't ever cover all situations. It means, for any act (let alone thought), it must either be 'good' or 'bad' (not getting into what they mean). However, that's not actually the way the universe works. Many things are clearly neither (well, maybe not 'clearly' - we can argue this).

I wake up in the morning and get myself a cup of tea - is that good or bad? You may say, "well, you're not violating someone's property rights". But what happens when I point out that the tea was harvested by (for the sake of this example) slaves? I personally may not be doing the violating, but are you going to say that since I'm part of the system, I must therefore be 'bad'?

(BTW, I do take issue with simply 'property rights', with little explanation... after all, there have been communities where personal property was anathema... the consideration of the perfect utopian society in which there is no such thing as private ownership of almost anything).

You also need to clarify your 'harm' word.

And, just to answer your last question - do I support slavery? I think there are times and places (and ways) for it, yes. However, I suspect we'll argue over the meaning of the word in the first place. Someone hasn't paid a debt that is owed, so I believe that the creditor has the right to take the payment out in the form of labour - if appropriate.

IIRC, I think we've had some of these arguments before.... (someone on here has tried to argue for some sort of utopia, while ignoring the realities of this universe). What to do with those who do fall into your category of 'bad' or 'evil'?

How about charity? I presume you think it would be 'good' to give to (legitimate) organisations. If someone doesn't, does that mean they're 'bad'? What if by doing so, it only encourages people to not become the best person they can be? What if, by giving to a homeless person, they only spend it on shooting up?

"the problem with human-ideas and concepts about «morality» is that we still continue to get various different results throughout all of «human» history;"

That's because being strict about property rights means that violent parenting isn't a thing anymore, as children have the same rights adults have. But many people seem to be unable to let go of the violence towards kids for a variety of reasons.

➡️ https://peacefulparenting.com