I'll add something to this that I think is important: "on purpose". Accidents are terrible, but they're not evil. Accidentally hurting a child by stepping on their foot isn't evil. Purposefully stomping on the foot of a child is evil.
Yes, they can disagree on "things". Not on "is genocide/child abuse/murder of innocent people a good thing". If you disagree with that, you're not "reasonable" or "decent".
Not philosophically, no we cannot go anywhere from there. Again, the is-ought problem.
It's good to be clear and precise.
It is if you hope to be logical and rational.
Not without know why it's evil. And to know why it's evil we have to know what evil is. Definitionally. Without a definition to point to you're stuck in circular reasoning and pointless repetition.
No, they're not anything alike. We have centuries of math and science and theories that have been supported with repeated experimentation and observation to point to the working models we have of physics and quantum physics are likely true. We have actual hard data collected and poured over by hundreds of thousands of scientists over the years that all point to those things being real and true.
Your logical fallacy is bandwagon. Morality is not democratic.
No, we haven't. We don't even have an acceptable definition of evil, much less bad, to work with. You're asserting things, not arguing for and supporting your claims.
Basic formal logic.
That's the idea, but those are also loose terms that we'd need to define. Moral, immoral. Wicked. Etc.
Partially, yes. Saying you know it when you see it isn't good enough. Saying everybody knows isn't good enough. Saying Paladine told me so isn't good enough. To be thinking, rational, reasonable people we have to be able to talk about these things. Think about them. And express them. Saying "it's true because I say so" isn't a thinking response. Not being able to express it doesn't mean you're wrong, only that you need to think about it more. No shame in that. But you can't really have a discussion about things when people just keep repeatedly saying that they're right and refuse to support their argument.
Exactly so. No matter how fervently we believe something, there is, almost guaranteed, a person out there who believes exactly the opposite with equal conviction to yours. The only thing that makes you think you're right and the other person wrong is you happened to be born and raised here and now rather than there and then. Once we accept that fact, it's incredibly hard to think there's anything approaching universal morality to say nothing of actually objective morality.
Maybe. Maybe not. It's still worth a try, I think.
I don't know about universal. Not sure why it would need to be three words. But sure.
I don't think so.
Sure. I'd say that selflessness and altruism are almost repetitions, they're almost the same thing. Selflessness is the internal version; altruism is the externalization of selflessness. I've always thought that words without deeds are hollow, so I'd take altruism over selflessness. I'd also agree that good would be peaceful, but not necessarily non-violent. For example, it's not good to let others come to harm if you have the power to prevent it. As a default, peaceful.
Well, we can't even get people to agree that definitions are important, much less necessary. I doubt we'd get consensus on what the definitions actually are. I know a lot of gamers who would define good in exactly opposing terms to what we have so far. They'd define good as complete and utter selfishness and a might makes right mindset. Mercy is for the weak, if you can't defend yourself you deserve what you get, and all that pleasantness. Real Cobra Kai types.
