alt Hacker NewsI have this thinking that, in reality, there's no such thing as objectively 'good' or objectively 'bad'
It's all context and timing.
Almost everyone that will attack this idea will present actions that are loaded with context - murder, is killing when it's bad, self defence is killing when it's good.
If you look at everything, and look at it's non-contextual action, then you can easily find contextually 'good' and contextually 'bad' instances of that thing.
Even further, the story of the man who lost his horse [0] shows us that even if we say that something that happens is contextually good, or bad, the resulting timeline could actually be the complete opposite, meaning that, ultimately, we can never really know if something is good, or bad.
[0] https://oneearthsangha.org/articles/the-old-man-who-lost-his...
Replies
In classic times there was no general concept of good or evil. The question was about if something is fitting in its context. With the rise of Christianity came the general concept of good or bad.
I think this is one of these cases where talking in abstract terms does not help people agree.
What I am hearing is if you remove context (and timing, lets say it is part of context) then there is no good or bad. But who said to remove context? Arent we saying then there is good and bad depending on context?
Many people, including myself, would agree in the abstract, while at the same time some situations being very clear once down to a real example.
It reminds me of people claiming pain is an illusion or facts not existing (very edgy), until someone slaps them in the face to prove "I did slap you, that is a fact". I think that is reality, and specific examples are easier.
P.S. I would add values into the context.