I don't mean to be inflammatory, but I don't know if I've seen anyone skirt an issue as much as you have. Every one of your examples is CLEARLY operating within the context of an assumed goal, to use Tiassa's excellent point. I can toss out a situation for each of your so-called 'givens' that further serves my point, that the words good and bad carry with them an implied agreed-upon goal, and human diversity being what it is - no such thing exists.
I'm not skirting any issue. It's just that for you to make some obvious or technical point that there has to be a goal to define good or bad is so obvious to be pointless. do you really think i don't understand the context of the bleach example? it's considered bad (to you) when your goal is to stay alive if another inflicted this on you whereas it may be considered good to the perpetrator if that is their intent but that has nothing to do with ethics. hypothetically, if it was done in the context or out of self-defense it may be apply to ethics but that't it. Ironicly, it's you who are misappropriating or obfuscating the meaning of ethics or morality or justice (with words "good and "bad" out of context or without context which often have nothing to do with ethics) which at it's root is about respecting the sanctity of life or the right to one's self-determination within reason and limits in a society depending on effects. just as if i label strawberry ice cream as tasting good to me has nothing to do with ethics or morality-at all. if my goal is to run up a hill and i succeed and i call the results 'good', it has nothing to do with ethics. just as this thread is in the ethics or morality subforum yet you pretend as if you have no understanding of what ethics or morality is based on.
it's also hard to take someone seriously as yourself which i am 100 percent and emphatically certain acts with the same motivation just like everyone else, every single day to ensure your self-preservation. you can wax on forever disassociatively while you preserve yourself every day like everyone else and fool yourself that it's all relative and subjective and nothing is shared or understood. a pretty selfish point of view, actually.
it seems pretty hypocritical. what is your real point? do you not want any labels of good or bad or feel that it's misapplied? it's true that people confuse with what is relative with dogma. why don't you give us some concrete examples instead of keeping it totally nebulous and also misleading by saying everything is totally relative and therefore there is no basis for moral or ethical responsiblity. really that seems to be your real point. look at your thread title, "should we even try?" I'm one-hundred percent certain that if you had a family and someone broke into your home to murder them, you would not be too happy about it or in agreement. the fact you have a problem with the words or labels is another matter. pick a new label then, eh? there are lots of labels or words that are misapplied or used incorrectly. love, for example, is often a misapplied word or misused one but that doesn't negate the existence of love when it happens. you can liken the words 'good and 'bad' as a figure of speech to an event or effect but that doesn't negate what actually took place.
at least i acknowledged that there were subjective but as well as concrete examples of good and bad. i also pointed out context.
you have not made any amazing point either. you are basically saying it all means nothing if you take out human will, feelings, desires, goals, effects etc or base it totally on subjective or selfish point of view.
well, really? that's brilliant. lmao
if i did not care or believe i should be held responsible if someone died since i survived in a car accident even if it was my fault or it was intentional because it made me feel good to ram my car into another, that has nothing to do with ethics. ethics and morality requires context with another or it's environment and an understanding that there are others who we affect.
how i know you are full of it is because my first post is what everyone else is expounding on in one way or another yet you were contrary. my first post was correct and the fact you were contrary and your subsequent posts is because you believe totally in the right of the will of the individual no matter who or how it affects others. your subsequent posts hint at it very strongly. you don't want the labels of good or bad as that is how laws are formed such as rape is bad, murder is bad etc. every single one of your posts hints at an anarchistic, individualistic, no holds barred dog eat dog philosophy.
actually, that would work if it were truly and totally lawless where no one is restrained in any way as anyone could make offenses as well as take defensive or offensive measures in return. but even then, eventually what we understand as ethics would form just as now since everyone is trying to preserve themselves.
so bottomline, you have no point. lmao
My supposition is that the words should be avoided at all costs because they are ultimately meaningless.
are you serious? lol
ethics is not a denial that other lives (such as stepping on bugs or killing animals for food or even killing others) are sacrificed for our own but an acknowledgement that all life is trying to preserve itself so we try as much as possible to lessen suffering or killing or lessen adverse effects to ourselves, others or the environment. this is a constant process.