Having a problem believing in Hell

[Betterave]

Excellent. Let’s do this. I will describe several scenarios to clarify what I mean. (By the way, the quotes are just separators here, not scare quotes. )

1. An environment where there are no living beings. In such an environment, the concepts of “good” and “bad” cannot be defined. For example, the tide waves will polish the pebbles of the beach to a nice, round shape, but neither the tide nor the pebbles “care”. To be round and smooth is not “better” for the pebbles than to be rough.

1. Okay, so ‘good’ and ‘bad’ only have application when living beings exist. It’s not yet clear why.

1. The next enviroment contains living entitites, but only simple ones, without a nervous system. In other words, vegetation. In this environment, “good” and “bad” can be defined as the synonyms of “useful” or “beneficial”, as opposed to “harmful” or “detrimental”. Everything that promotes life for the living beings is good for them, everything that is detrimental to their life is bad for them. Naturally, there will be conflicts, a smaller sized vegetation under the shade of a larger one “suffers” from being cut off from sunlight. There is no “universal” good in this world. Sunshine is usually good, but too much sunshine is bad. Proper amount of water is good (varying from plant to plant), but too much water or drought is bad, etc…

1. When we come to consider living beings, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ apply to whatever ‘helps’ or ‘harms’ those living beings. So the question about the cosmos - the basic existential condition for the existence of life, which is possibly created by God - is: does it ‘help’ or ‘harm’ living beings? Or do you think that it might be neutral towards living beings/life?

1. Now, let’s consider life with a nervous system, but without higher brain functions. Everything said before still applies, but we need to add the pleasantness factor to life. Everything is good, if it promotes life or enhances its pleasure. The reverse is “bad”. These are biological attributes. The beings are not aware that they seek out the pleasant experiences, or try to avoid the unpleasant ones, they do it instinctively.

1. The existence of a functional nervous system implies that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ now apply to the satisfaction or non-satisfaction of instinctive preferences. The picture begins to get complicated: Is this an equivocal use of ‘good’ and ‘bad’? How is it related to the meaning given in #2? Do the ‘goods’ and ‘bads’ of 2 and 3 conflict (life vs. pleasure)? And whether you think they do or not, what does either answer tell us about the ‘goodness’ or ‘badness’ of the cosmos, and what its purposes are?

1. Finally, life with consciousness. The same biological imperatives still apply, but they may become more complicated, by introducing a “moral” aspect, which may lead to disagreements. But I tried to make a first cut of defining “good” and “bad”, on which we can hopefully build upon.

1. So you apparently have assumed that there are no ‘disagreements’ prior to this stage, where ‘good’ and ‘bad’ take on (undefined) ‘moral’ connotations. I’m not sure about where that assumption is coming from, so I’ll let you clear that up before saying any more.

Well, I may respect the effort, but not necessarily the outcome.

Agreed. But I think it is important to *genuinely *respect the effort, *by understanding *that some such effort is indispensable for anyone who truly wants to be human, who wants to embrace the full meaning and responsibility of what it means to be human.

Certainly the Bible is a compilation of several writs. I wonder, however. Do you think that there is a need to explain literally every verse and sentence? Are there no sentences, which stand on their own right, which clearly mean what they say? Just curious, since it does not really belong to this conversation.

I doubt that *any *sentence (certainly any which purports to express a general truth) stands on its own. Context is always important. Meaning is use, as Wittgenstein says, and use is always contextual. That is not to say that context is always ill-defined and questionable; so in many contexts a sentence *can *certainly clearly mean what it says. But it is very easy to *falsely assume *that we are in such a context, where meaning is obvious, so in general we need to be on guard about this kind of thing.

For what it’s worth, I think the issue is further complicated/explicated by the fact the ‘context’ includes both semantic and pragmatic elements - roughly, what does this sentence *mean *and what is this sentence for.

 

[Spock]

1. Okay, so ‘good’ and ‘bad’ only have application when living beings exist. It’s not yet clear why.

Because both good and bad only have meaning for someone or something that experiences a beneficial or harmful effect. Non-living entities do not experience anything.

1. When we come to consider living beings, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ apply to whatever ‘helps’ or ‘harms’ those living beings. So the question about the cosmos - the basic existential condition for the existence of life, which is possibly created by God - is: does it ‘help’ or ‘harm’ living beings? Or do you think that it might be neutral towards living beings/life?

Good question. I thought I answered it already by stipulating that different living beings “find” different effects beneficial and harmful. The cosmos itself is neutral, in the sense that it has no “intentions”. Certain aspects of the cosmos may be beneficial or harmful to a living being. (Again a simplistic example: the amount of rain which is “just fine” for the plant impatient, is lethal for a cactus.)

1. The existence of a functional nervous system implies that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ now apply to the satisfaction or non-satisfaction of instinctive preferences. The picture begins to get complicated: Is this an equivocal use of ‘good’ and ‘bad’? How is it related to the meaning given in #2? Do the ‘goods’ and ‘bads’ of 2 and 3 conflict (life vs. pleasure)? And whether you think they do or not, what does either answer tell us about the ‘goodness’ or ‘badness’ of the cosmos, and what its purposes are?

You are right, the picture is getting more and more complicated. The underlying biological imperatives stay the same: “food is good, starvation is bad”, etc… but now we have to contend with biologically not-so-relevant aspects of existence, which nevertheless will enhance the quailty of life (like being dry during a rain, hiding in a cave). One can survive even if wet, but it is more pleasant to be dry.

The cosmos is a collection of objects. It has no “purpose”. It simply “is”.

1. So you apparently have assumed that there are no ‘disagreements’ prior to this stage, where ‘good’ and ‘bad’ take on (undefined) ‘moral’ connotations. I’m not sure about where that assumption is coming from, so I’ll let you clear that up before saying any more.

Wel, just taking an example. It is good (or useful or beneficial) for the cat to eat the mouse, while it is bad (or harmful) for the mouse to become a “dinner”. Facts of life, nothing more. When a higher level of consciousness comes into the picture, a new level of “good and bad” needs to be considered. For example, self-sacrifice is “bad” for one who performs it, and may be “good” for those who will benefit from it.

But I would prefer to have a mutually established starting square, which we could use for further exploration. What I offered so far is my take on the concepts of good and bad as a first approximation. They are subject to change, enhancement or criticism.

 

[Betterave]

Because both good and bad only have meaning for someone or something that experiences a beneficial or harmful effect. Non-living entities do not experience anything.

I thank you for your initial detailed account of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ at different levels. I might be confused now, though, about what you mean. When you say that plants ‘experience’ beneficial and harmful effects, I take it you just mean they undergo beneficial or harmful effects. So what makes that true, in your view (other than the unanalysed fact that the plant is alive)? Is it just intuitively obvious? Or do you accept an explicitly teleological account of what a plant is, such that there is a ‘good-for’ and a ‘bad-for’ with respect to plants precisely because some things help the plant to flourish qua plant, and some things hinder it from doing so? Or some other reason?

 

[Spock]

I thank you for your initial detailed account of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ at different levels. I might be confused now, though, about what you mean. When you say that plants ‘experience’ beneficial and harmful effects, I take it you just mean they undergo beneficial or harmful effects.

Yes, when I used the word “experience”, I used it figuratively. They exhibit the signs of flourishing, or wilting, of being healthy or unwell.

So what makes that true, in your view (other than the unanalysed fact that the plant is alive)?

Why is this fact unanalyzed?

Is it just intuitively obvious? Or do you accept an explicitly teleological account of what a plant is, such that there is a ‘good-for’ and a ‘bad-for’ with respect to plants precisely because some things help the plant to flourish qua plant, and some things hinder it from doing so? Or some other reason?

I wonder about the usage of “teleological” here. Telos (goal) is something we might impose on the plant, sort of anthropomorphizing it. The plant has no “goal”. It tries to survive (the word “try” is figurative, again) and attempts (figuratively) to spread its genes. It is all biological. But if you use these words (good and bad) as descriptors of a biological process, which “help” the plant to flourish, then I agree with you totally. That is precisely what I said that “good and bad” means in this respect.

 

[Betterave]

Yes, when I used the word “experience”, I used it figuratively. They exhibit the signs of flourishing, or wilting, of being healthy or unwell.

But why not just say they are flourishing or wilting, etc.?

Why is this fact unanalyzed?

It seemed to me that you had simply not given any analysis of the concept ‘alive’ or ‘life’ or ‘living’ - do you disagree?

I wonder about the usage of “teleological” here. Telos (goal) is something we might impose on the plant, sort of anthropomorphizing it. The plant has no “goal”. It tries to survive (the word “try” is figurative, again) and attempts (figuratively) to spread its genes. It is all biological. But if you use these words (good and bad) as descriptors of a biological process, which “help” the plant to flourish, then I agree with you totally. That is precisely what I said that “good and bad” means in this respect.

You seem to make a start of analyzing what you mean by ‘life’ here (something about ‘a biological process’). But maybe you could explain what exactly you mean be ‘alive’, and specifically explain what is it about ‘life’ which makes you think that ‘life’ constitutes a necessary and sufficient condition for ascription of the concepts ‘good’ and ‘bad’?

 

[Spock]

But why not just say they are flourishing or wilting, etc.?

Sure, that is fine.

It seemed to me that you had simply not given any analysis of the concept ‘alive’ or ‘life’ or ‘living’ - do you disagree?

Not yet, indeed. So, let’s go and analyze the concept of life. Funny thing is that even biologists have problems when they try to draw a dividing line between living and non-living entities. Some biologists say that viruses are “living entities”, others say that they are “crystalline structures”. It seems that the dividing line is arbitrary. Just like the dividing line between a “child” and an “adult”.

The simplest way to define life is to say that a living entity attempts to maintain its homeostasis in a changing environment. There are other attributes usually associated with life, like taking in energy, or excreting waste products, or producing offsprings, but we can see that none of those are logically necessary.

Edit: To put it a bit differently: “Life is complex response to complex stimuli”.

You seem to make a start of analyzing what you mean by ‘life’ here (something about ‘a biological process’). But maybe you could explain what exactly you mean be ‘alive’, and specifically explain what is it about ‘life’ which makes you think that ‘life’ constitutes a necessary and sufficient condition for ascription of the concepts ‘good’ and ‘bad’?

It is simply obvious. Since good is a synonym for “beneficial” and “useful”, it would make no sense to try and apply these categories to non-living entities. At least, I cannot imagine it. Maybe you can.

 

[Betterave]

Not yet, indeed. So, let’s go and analyze the concept of life. Funny thing is that even biologists have problems when they try to draw a dividing line between living and non-living entities. Some biologists say that viruses are “living entities”, others say that they are “crystalline structures”. It seems that the dividing line is arbitrary. Just like the dividing line between a “child” and an “adult”.

Okay, so what do you think that the a borderline case like a virus shows? Is it hard to say what is ‘good’ for a virus and ‘bad’ for a virus? If ‘life’ and ‘good’/‘bad’ are so tightly conceptually linked, that is what I would expect.

The simplest way to define life is to say that a living entity attempts to maintain its homeostasis in a changing environment. There are other attributes usually associated with life, like taking in energy, or excreting waste products, or producing offsprings, but we can see that none of those are logically necessary.

Edit: To put it a bit differently: “Life is complex response to complex stimuli”.

That seems really implausible to me, as an adequate explanation of why ‘life’ is a necessary and sufficient condition for intelligible ascriptions of ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ There seem to be many complex natural inorganic systems - which may or may not include a contribution from organic components - which (attempt to) maintain a homeostasis in a changing environment - e.g., the water cycle or the rock cycle. It seems that you need to explain why such things are not ‘alive’ and/or why ‘good’ and ‘bad’ do *not *apply to them, but *do *apply to other cases of “maintenance of homeostasis in a complex environment.”

It is simply obvious. Since good is a synonym for “beneficial” and “useful”, it would make no sense to try and apply these categories to non-living entities. At least, I cannot imagine it. Maybe you can.

A car is non-living, right? But I can certainly apply the terms ‘beneficial’ and ‘harmful’ to a car. E.g., running it with dirty oil is harmful, replacing dirty oil with clean oil is beneficial.

 

[Spock]

Okay, so what do you think that the a borderline case like a virus shows? Is it hard to say what is ‘good’ for a virus and ‘bad’ for a virus? If ‘life’ and ‘good’/‘bad’ are so tightly conceptually linked, that is what I would expect.

Consider a snowflake. Is it better for the snowflake to gather a few more water molecules and add them to its pretty, hexagonal pattern? Does the growth of a stalactite / stalagmite “do” something for the stone itself?

That seems really implausible to me, as an adequate explanation of why ‘life’ is a necessary and sufficient condition for intelligible ascriptions of ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ There seem to be many complex natural inorganic systems - which may or may not include a contribution from organic components - which (attempt to) maintain a homeostasis in a changing environment - e.g., the water cycle or the rock cycle. It seems that you need to explain why such things are not ‘alive’ and/or why ‘good’ and ‘bad’ do *not *apply to them, but *do *apply to other cases of “maintenance of homeostasis in a complex environment.”

What do you mean by the “water cycle” or the “rock cycle”? The weather pattern, maybe? I am not sure what you mean here.

A car is non-living, right? But I can certainly apply the terms ‘beneficial’ and ‘harmful’ to a car. E.g., running it with dirty oil is harmful, replacing dirty oil with clean oil is beneficial.

I am very glad for your presented example. It shows our different approach really well, and it should clarify the issue. Whether the car runs smoothly or rusts into a pile of junk is important for the user / owner of the car, who is obviously a human being. But it is completely irrelevant and “unimportant” for the car itself. That is the reason I used the example of a pebble being polished into a nice round shape. If there would be a human around, who might want to use that pebble in a slingshot, then the round shape would be “good”, or useful or beneficial - for the human. But the pebble would not care, would it?

Certainly, in everyday vernacular we say stuff like “it is better for the car to have its oil replaced in a regular fashion”, but we ought to be aware that it is not better for the car itself, it is only better for the user of the car. Does this clarify the issue?

 

[Betterave]

Consider a snowflake. Is it better for the snowflake to gather a few more water molecules and add them to its pretty, hexagonal pattern? Does the growth of a stalactite / stalagmite “do” something for the stone itself?

I don’t see what your point is in asking these questions. Is that supposed to answer the question about viruses somehow? I don’t know much about viruses but I would assume that conditions under which viruses proliferate are ‘good’ for the virus and conditions under which they break down are ‘bad.’ And I don’t see the relevance of the question about their status as being ‘life’ or not, to the question about whether ‘good’ and ‘bad’ apply to them.

What do you mean by the “water cycle” or the “rock cycle”? The weather pattern, maybe? I am not sure what you mean here.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_cycle

I am very glad for your presented example. It shows our different approach really well, and it should clarify the issue. Whether the car runs smoothly or rusts into a pile of junk is important for the user / owner of the car, who is obviously a human being. But it is completely irrelevant and “unimportant” for the car itself. That is the reason I used the example of a pebble being polished into a nice round shape. If there would be a human around, who might want to use that pebble in a slingshot, then the round shape would be “good”, or useful or beneficial - for the human. But the pebble would not care, would it?

But you very much miss the point here, it seems: the notion of what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ for the car certainly can be tied back to what is important for some human being. But that doesn’t dissolve the fact that changing the oil is important for the human being because it is first of all ‘good’ for the car. The car is important to the human being; therefore what is ‘good’ for the car is also important to the human being. Why deny this? And if you do choose to deny it, what grounds do you have for not extending your point about cars or pebbles to plants? The plant may live or it may die - but the plant would not care would it?..

Certainly, in everyday vernacular we say stuff like “it is better for the car to have its oil replaced in a regular fashion”, but we ought to be aware that it is not better for the car itself, it is only better for the user of the car. Does this clarify the issue?

…so no; I think the issue is still unclear.

 

[Spock]

I don’t see what your point is in asking these questions. Is that supposed to answer the question about viruses somehow? I don’t know much about viruses but I would assume that conditions under which viruses proliferate are ‘good’ for the virus and conditions under which they break down are ‘bad.’ And I don’t see the relevance of the question about their status as being ‘life’ or not, to the question about whether ‘good’ and ‘bad’ apply to them.

The point is that the dividing line between life and not-life is pretty much subjective. For those who subscribe to the Gaia-hypothesis the water-cycle and the rock-cycle might be considered signs of “life”.

But you very much miss the point here, it seems: the notion of what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ for the car certainly can be tied back to what is important for some human being.

Actually I agree with you. It can only be considered important if it can be tied to the user of the car. For the car itself (separated from the user) the adjectives “good” and “bad” cannot be defined.

But that doesn’t dissolve the fact that changing the oil is important for the human being because it is first of all ‘good’ for the car. The car is important to the human being; therefore what is ‘good’ for the car is also important to the human being. Why deny this?

But I do not deny it at all. Actually that is the point I hold. Without the human in the picture, the car’s condition is not relevant. The good or bad condition of the car is contingent upon the existence of human user. Without the human being in the picture the condition of the car becomes a non-issue. Suppose all the living beings (humans included) would all of a sudden disappear. Suppose that some automatic system would perform the oil change in a periodic fashion. Would that make any difference? Of course not.

And if you do choose to deny it, what grounds do you have for not extending your point about cars or pebbles to plants? The plant may live or it may die - but the plant would not care would it?..

That is the point again. The plant may not “care” in a conscious fashion about its own existence, but its own, built-in biological nature “prefers” to exist, while the pebble has no such mechanism in it.

 

[hazcompat]

Power and knowledge are attributes of God(Who Am). Creation (world) does not necessarily emanate from these, or these alone, perhaps effortless Will Love?

peace

 

[hazcompat]

Infinity is a concept, not a number.

peace

 

[Betterave]

The point is that the dividing line between life and not-life is pretty much subjective. For those who subscribe to the Gaia-hypothesis the water-cycle and the rock-cycle might be considered signs of “life”.

Okay… so where does that leave you and your claim that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ only have application when ‘living beings’ exist?? What that actually means has become “pretty much subjective,” it seems, and as a result your original taxonomy of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ seems pretty much worthless.

Actually I agree with you. It can only be considered important if it can be tied to the user of the car. For the car itself (separated from the user) the adjectives “good” and “bad” cannot be defined.

Yes, you agree with this point, but not with me - I was simply summarizing your point, before going on to a “but…”

But I do not deny it at all. Actually that is the point I hold. Without the human in the picture, the car’s condition is not relevant. The good or bad condition of the car is contingent upon the existence of human user. Without the human being in the picture the condition of the car becomes a non-issue. Suppose all the living beings (humans included) would all of a sudden disappear. Suppose that some automatic system would perform the oil change in a periodic fashion. Would that make any difference? Of course not.

Well the car would only need an oil change if it was being driven, so the point of the scenario seems a little hard to pin down when the car has no driver. But in any case, I think you did deny what I claim. You said: “But it [clean oil] is completely irrelevant and ‘unimportant’ for the car itself.” I claim, however, that clean oil actually is ‘good’ for the car itself. You can point out that the car itself is not ‘good’ in itself, and/or that it doesn’t *grasp *anything as ‘good’ for itself. But the same point applies to most living things, does it not? Certainly plants…?

That is the point again. The plant may not “care” in a conscious fashion about its own existence, but its own, built-in biological nature “prefers” to exist, while the pebble has no such mechanism in it.

So why can’t we just as well say that the car also doesn’t ‘care’ about its own existence in a conscious fashion, but its own built-in mechanical nature ‘prefers’ clean oil?

 

[Spock]

Okay… so where does that leave you and your claim that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ only have application when ‘living beings’ exist?? What that actually means has become “pretty much subjective,” it seems, and as a result your original taxonomy of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ seems pretty much worthless.

Does it now? Just because there are some borderline cases where the distinction between living and inanimate matter is subjecitvely decided, the description of “good” and “bad” are still applicable when there is no ambiguity (which is 99.99999…% of the cases). Just consider the child-adult dichotomy in conjunction with the concept of responsibilty. For some individuals it is hard to decide if they should be considered children or adults. But that does not make the concept of responsibility meaningless.

Yes, you agree with this point, but not with me - I was simply summarizing your point, before going on to a “but…”

I went back and tried to re-read the exchange in the light of this remark, and I am confused. If you think it is important, please clarify.

Well the car would only need an oil change if it was being driven, so the point of the scenario seems a little hard to pin down when the car has no driver.

Indeed, but I would not just say “hard”, rather “impossible”. And that is the point of the scenario.

But in any case, I think you did deny what I claim. You said: “But it [clean oil] is completely irrelevant and ‘unimportant’ for the car itself.” I claim, however, that clean oil actually is ‘good’ for the car itself.

Explain, how? If there is no driver, the car does not move, the engine does not turn, therefore the existence (or the absence or the cleanliness) of the oil in the engine is of no relevance. Please explain what you mean here, because this is the fundamental disagreement between us.

So why can’t we just as well say that the car also doesn’t ‘care’ about its own existence in a conscious fashion, but its own built-in mechanical nature ‘prefers’ clean oil?

What do you mean that the car has its own “mechanical nature”? What about electric cars, which have no need for lubricant oil in their engines?

Now we can start to go into sci-fi land, and we can start to consider Asimov’s cars with positronic brains. Those cars actually care about their own condition, and in a very good sense they are alive. But then we are back to our starting scenario, except the realm of living entities is now expanded.

 

[Betterave]

Does it now? Just because there are some borderline cases where the distinction between living and inanimate matter is subjecitvely decided, the description of “good” and “bad” are still applicable when there is no ambiguity (which is 99.99999…% of the cases). Just consider the child-adult dichotomy in conjunction with the concept of responsibilty. For some individuals it is hard to decide if they should be considered children or adults. But that does not make the concept of responsibility meaningless.

The point is that your original taxonomy is radically undermined if, instead of elaborating your conceptual analysis, you simply resort to saying that it is based on a construal of the relevant concepts which is “pretty much subjective.” Would you say that the child-adult dichotomy is “pretty much subjective”? I sure wouldn’t. What do you mean by making that kind of claim? That the classification of borderline cases on one side or the other of a distinction is difficult does not imply that the distinction itself is “pretty much subjective.”

I went back and tried to re-read the exchange in the light of this remark, and I am confused. If you think it is important, please clarify.

Here’s what I wrote, with comments for clarification in italics: “But you very much miss the point here, it seems: now just as you say, the notion of what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ for the car certainly can be tied back to what is important for some human being (we agree about that). But, nonetheless, not in a reductive way…[etc.]…”

Indeed, but I would not just say “hard”, rather “impossible”. And that is the point of the scenario.

The point of the scenario is that it is impossible to pin down the point of the scenario?

Explain, how? If there is no driver, the car does not move, the engine does not turn, therefore the existence (or the absence or the cleanliness) of the oil in the engine is of no relevance. Please explain what you mean here, because this is the fundamental disagreement between us.

The car is a car whether anyone drives it or not. Its mechanical function and design exist intrinsically to it. The fact that it actually performs its mechanical function only when humans are around to drive it is irrelevant to that piece of conceptual analysis. Again: man wants the car to run (man maybe even loves car); so he puts clean oil in the car simply because that is good for the car itself. Your introduction of a counter-factual situation where no man exists seems to be irrelevant to the truth of that statement - your scenario seems to be a red herring which ignores the conceptual point being made. Can you see that?

If you still don’t get it, consider this scenario: Godzilla attacks man. Man drives car into Godzilla, disabling Godzilla, wrecking car, and allowing man to escape. This is bad for Godzilla, good for man, bad for car. Therefore what is bad for car is good for man, and so it is obvious that good/bad for car is not reducible to good/bad for man. Make sense?

What do you mean that the car has its own “mechanical nature”? What about electric cars, which have no need for lubricant oil in their engines?

Now we can start to go into sci-fi land, and we can start to consider Asimov’s cars with positronic brains. Those cars actually care about their own condition, and in a very good sense they are alive. But then we are back to our starting scenario, except the realm of living entities is now expanded.

What about electric cars? That’s just a red herring, isn’t it? We *could *obviously change the example, but electric cars still require lubrication, and I think there are just as obviously things that are ‘good’ for and ‘bad’ for an electric car.

In any case, you’ve avoided the crucial question so far, so I’ll repeat, with emphasis added:
You said: “But it [clean oil] is completely irrelevant and ‘unimportant’ for the car itself.” I claim, however, that clean oil actually is ‘good’ for the car itself. You can point out that the car itself is not ‘good’ in itself, and/or that it doesn’t grasp anything as ‘good’ for itself. But the same point applies to most living things, does it not? Certainly plants…?

 

[Spock]

The point of the scenario is that it is impossible to pin down the point of the scenario?

You said: “Well the car would only need an oil change if it was being driven, so the point of the scenario seems a little hard to pin down when the car has no driver.” The point is that the concept of good and bad can only be defined when there is a living agent mixed into the scenario.

The car is a car whether anyone drives it or not. Its mechanical function and design exist intrinsically to it. The fact that it actually performs its mechanical function only when humans are around to drive it is irrelevant to that piece of conceptual analysis. Again: man wants the car to run (man maybe even loves car); so he puts clean oil in the car simply because that is good for the car itself. Your introduction of a counter-factual situation where no man exists seems to be irrelevant to the truth of that statement - your scenario seems to be a red herring which ignores the conceptual point being made. Can you see that?

No, because the real “red herring” is the “smuggling of the user” into the scenario. I am arguing that only an addition of a living agent can “lend” value to the inanimate objects. And that is what the example of the pebble signified. There is no “function” or “design” in a piece of stone, be it nice and smooth or rough.

If and only if (and that is the point here) we add a human and slingshot to the example, then (and only then) will the roundness of the pebble gain “goodness”. In and by itself the characteristics of the pebble are neither good nor bad. The polishing action of the sea changes the characteristics, but it does not make the pebble “better” or “worse”.

If you still don’t get it, consider this scenario: Godzilla attacks man. Man drives car into Godzilla, disabling Godzilla, wrecking car, and allowing man to escape. This is bad for Godzilla, good for man, bad for car. Therefore what is bad for car is good for man, and so it is obvious that good/bad for car is not reducible to good/bad for man. Make sense?

No, it does not. You again mixed some living agents into the example. The wrecking of the car is not relevant to the car, only to the human owner of it (who probably considers it a good exchange for his life).

In any case, you’ve avoided the crucial question so far, so I’ll repeat, with emphasis added:
You said: “But it [clean oil] is completely irrelevant and ‘unimportant’ for the car itself.” I claim, however, that clean oil actually is ‘good’ for the car itself. You can point out that the car itself is not ‘good’ in itself, and/or that it doesn’t grasp anything as ‘good’ for itself. But the same point applies to most living things, does it not? Certainly plants…?

Here is the answer: The living beings “use” the inanimate objects and that usage lends value to the inanimate objects, which they do not have on their own.

Now, let’s see the answer to my question: What do you consider “good” or “bad” in the realm of inanimate objects, where there are no living agents around?

 

[Betterave]

I think you’re still missing the point. Let me throw another twist into the Godzilla scenario:

Originally Posted by Betterave
If you still don’t get it, consider this scenario: Godzilla attacks man. Man drives car into Godzilla, disabling Godzilla, wrecking car, and allowing man to escape. This is bad for Godzilla, good for man, bad for car. Therefore what is bad for car is good for man, and so it is obvious that good/bad for car is not reducible to good/bad for man. Make sense?

You say:

No, it does not. You again mixed some living agents into the example. [Right… So what?? That’s irrelevant to the point I’m trying to make.] The wrecking of the car is not relevant to the car, only to the human owner of it (who probably considers it a good exchange for his life).

Now suppose Godzilla also stepped on man’s rose bush before finally limping away. Now you say that the wrecking of the car is not relevant to the car, only to the human owner of it (who probably considers it a good exchange for his life). My question is: why wouldn’t you also say that the wrecking of the rose bush is not relevant to the rose bush, only the human owner of it? This is the question I keep coming back to and you keep dodging it. (Please note that claiming that it matters to the rose bush because the rose bush is alive simply begs the question and doesn’t explain what it is about ‘being alive’ that makes ‘being alive’ the necessary and sufficient condition for meaningful ascriptions of ‘good’ and ‘bad.’)

 

[StrawberryJam]

I think you’re still missing the point. Let me throw another twist into the Godzilla scenario:

Originally Posted by Betterave
If you still don’t get it, consider this scenario: Godzilla attacks man. Man drives car into Godzilla, disabling Godzilla, wrecking car, and allowing man to escape. This is bad for Godzilla, good for man, bad for car. Therefore what is bad for car is good for man, and so it is obvious that good/bad for car is not reducible to good/bad for man. Make sense?

You say:

No, it does not. You again mixed some living agents into the example. [Right… So what?? That’s irrelevant to the point I’m trying to make.] The wrecking of the car is not relevant to the car, only to the human owner of it (who probably considers it a good exchange for his life).

Now suppose Godzilla also stepped on man’s rose bush before finally limping away. Now you say that the wrecking of the car is not relevant to the car, only to the human owner of it (who probably considers it a good exchange for his life). My question is: why wouldn’t you also say that the wrecking of the rose bush is not relevant to the rose bush, only the human owner of it? This is the question I keep coming back to and you keep dodging it. (Please note that claiming that it matters to the rose bush because the rose bush is alive simply begs the question and doesn’t explain what it is about ‘being alive’ that makes ‘being alive’ the necessary and sufficient condition for meaningful ascriptions of ‘good’ and ‘bad.’)

One single rose bush would not matter at all. Proving a Godzilla, or even a God would never change that.

 

[Spock]

I think you’re still missing the point. Let me throw another twist into the Godzilla scenario:

Originally Posted by Betterave
If you still don’t get it, consider this scenario: Godzilla attacks man. Man drives car into Godzilla, disabling Godzilla, wrecking car, and allowing man to escape. This is bad for Godzilla, good for man, bad for car. Therefore what is bad for car is good for man, and so it is obvious that good/bad for car is not reducible to good/bad for man. Make sense?

You say:

No, it does not. You again mixed some living agents into the example. [Right… So what?? That’s irrelevant to the point I’m trying to make.] The wrecking of the car is not relevant to the car, only to the human owner of it (who probably considers it a good exchange for his life).

Now suppose Godzilla also stepped on man’s rose bush before finally limping away. Now you say that the wrecking of the car is not relevant to the car, only to the human owner of it (who probably considers it a good exchange for his life). My question is: why wouldn’t you also say that the wrecking of the rose bush is not relevant to the rose bush, only the human owner of it? This is the question I keep coming back to and you keep dodging it. (Please note that claiming that it matters to the rose bush because the rose bush is alive simply begs the question and doesn’t explain what it is about ‘being alive’ that makes ‘being alive’ the necessary and sufficient condition for meaningful ascriptions of ‘good’ and ‘bad.’)

No, it does not beg the question at all. When you asked me about the categorization of good and bad, I enumerated 4 different scenarios. Instead of examining the first one, you immediately started to bring in a living element thereby “contaminating” the problem, or creating a “red herring”.

If you wish to present a different definition, by all means, do so. I am curious how can you talk about “good” and “bad” in a universe totally and completely devoid of life. I offered a definition of what good and bad means. I don’t have to give explain why being alive is “good”, since that is the definition I am offering. You are free to disagree with it, and if you do, please give an alternative difinition so we can move ahead.

 

[Betterave]

No, it does not beg the question at all. When you asked me about the categorization of good and bad, I enumerated 4 different scenarios. Instead of examining the first one, you immediately started to bring in a living element thereby “contaminating” the problem, or creating a “red herring”.

You seem to be implying that I am supposed to be examining the first scenario you presented - why? What problem to you take me to be ‘contaminating’ and how am I ‘contaminating’ it?

If you wish to present a different definition, by all means, do so. I am curious how can you talk about “good” and “bad” in a universe totally and completely devoid of life. I offered a definition of what good and bad means. I don’t have to give explain why being alive is “good”, since that is the definition I am offering. You are free to disagree with it, and if you do, please give an alternative difinition so we can move ahead.

I don’t wish to present a different definition. That is not my point at all. Again: I’m just trying to understand your reason for making ‘life’ a necessary and sufficient condition for ascriptions of ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ I’m trying to understand what exactly you mean when you make that claim. You seem to want to say that it is just obvious? But again, I don’t think it is, and I think that is why you can’t just answer my question:
Now suppose Godzilla also stepped on man’s rose bush before finally limping away. Now you say that the wrecking of the car is not relevant to the car, only to the human owner of it (who probably considers it a good exchange for his life). My question is: why wouldn’t you also say that the wrecking of the rose bush is not relevant to the rose bush, only the human owner of it? This is the question I keep coming back to and you keep dodging it.
You claim that I have somehow ‘contaminated’ the problem, but my question about the rosebush ‘contaminates’ what exactly? I don’t see how that charge makes sense: with respect to what issue is my question a red herring??