I have a question about something?

[DeadShot96]

What's your opinion about good and bad? Is it subjective?

[Sonorous]

Well, my first thought is that good & bad or right & wrong both have moral components to them. So by using them, an entity implies that it has a goal it wants to achieve. A desired outcome. They're evolutionary tools to aid in survival.

It benefits life if a subjective entity can map its reality to discern its world. And those same tools are often vague, pliable, & relative terms that a social entity could use to manipulate a given situation to its advantage. But I'll entertain the question & go a little deeper into how I view subjectivity & objectivity.

For starters, I don't believe in absolute objectivity or absolute subjectivity. I think they complement & are dependent on one another in the sense that you can't have one without the other. A structure can only be created in & with objective reality. And (from what we know) you can't have subjectivity without a body or structure capable of creating & sustaining perception. So since technically nothing exists until there's something to perceive it, subjectivity is necessary to confirm that it won't sit in some limbo state of potential. At least from our perspective, they both are necessary if something is going to interpret anything as anything.

Another thing I believe is that true objectivity is impossible to interpret (due to limitations) & true subjectivity is entirely possible to interpret (because it involves any & all perceptions).

For instance, the sun is technically what we call "white." But we don't see it that way naturally. And even still, that would just be our incomplete categorical description of it. Many things are perceived as white but don't have the same qualities as the sun, so there are many more descriptive aspects from objective elements left out. Even one's we don't know to think of. But I believe subjectivity, even if objectively inaccurate, will always be valid & true to an entity embodying. I believe we will always be 100% able to interpret/embody subjectivity due to its abstract nature.

But with all that being said, even though there is no objective good, evil, right, or wrong, I believe we're better off behaving in ways that consider it. Because we're still limited creatures that are dependent on a certain harmony.

[Sonorous]

And I do want to clarify that even though everything is always 100% subjective, I believe we'll still be able to interpret elements of objective reality, but it will never be 100%. The degree will vary, but will always be incomplete. And I believe we were not designed to be able to 100% know objective reality.

[SlothySlob]

Depending on the observer, it could be both good and bad. Ultimately in nature good or bad doesn't exist, I hate using this word but, it is a social construct.

[MCheetah]

Good and bad, regarding morality, is always 100% subjective. Anything can be argued as being "good" or "evil" in the right context. For example, if murder is evil, does that mean all soldiers and gun-owning policemen go to Hell?

That's why I don't believe in "good" and "evil." It's just selflessness and selfishness. Although some people are extremely selfish and destructive, and sometimes, "evil" is just a quicker adjective, even if I realize they aren't truly "evil."

[Guy13]

We have an innate knowing of good/bad and conscience to inform us... Your choice is of a subjective nature in that you can choose or choose Not the "Good" Thing before you etc...

[call_me_scar]

I think in the grand scheme of things it's subjective as it's not like some grand power is making this stuff up or whatever but from a human standpoint or mindset or whatever their could be an objective as it's not like rape has a benefit