The problem is our conscience depends on variables we don't choose i.e. genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. — Truth Seeker

Is having a conscience a problem? I suppose it could be if it became uncontrollable and developed into a mental health issue.

I wonder if everyone has a conscience though, but people choose to suppress it, or ignore their conscience by deceiving themselves into thinking that what they are doing is justified. This could be affected by environments and experiences, but would also involve some amount of choice. I am just playing with ideas here though and am not certain about any of them. I think it must be pretty hard to be certain about any of this. (haha and there I was thinking I was going off topic, and I ended up coming back round to it again :) )

it is because of our compassion and caring that we treat people and other living things who are ill. — Truth Seeker

I think having a conscience is important too (or is that the same thing?) When I have done something that, on reflection, I realize may have hurt (not physically) someone, I feel absolutely terrible. However, I recognize that this is a good thing and try to learn from the experience. I would hate to think that one day I might have no guilty conscience, despite it being painful.

My previous experiences with you have been to the effect that what you think is right, even if its wrong, so forgive a little shortness. — AmadeusD

I go to lengths to make it clear that these are my opinions, and I try not to state my opinions as facts, which would be wrong. I also frequently let it be known that I respect the opinions of others. I may have, on occasion, fallen short on this (I do not claim to be perfect) and I do not have a problem apologizing if I have caused offense in any way.

Then you are not in touch with the concepts at hand. Ironic. — AmadeusD

In your opinion.

You seem to be still talking about something I have already addressed, though, so perhaps this is going to devolve into me having to point out that you're ignoring me, as our other two threads have done: — AmadeusD

If I have ignored you then I apologize. I must have missed something.

Of course compassion and caring solve many problems, but not all. Clearly not all. For example, in the event of a plague compassion and caring helps enormously, but many will still die. — jgill

Yes, of course, we cannot solve the problems of the world, but we can make small differences
(small on a worldwide scale) that actually may make a big difference to the person being helped. Furthermore, it can also help the person giving the help in my view.

It is an understanding and rational apprehension of the problem, and in turn, a viable solution. — AmadeusD

To me, that is just another way of rephrasing compassion and caring.

being solved by crying and thinking yourself into a black hole. — AmadeusD

I'd be surprised if anyone actually did that. People can feel sympathy for others and feel sad, but crying themselves into a black hole seems like a bit of an over exaggeration. You are taking a very negative viewpoint of this for some reason. I get extreme pleasure out of helping others when I can, and it gives me a surge of hope (as it probably also does for the person I am helping) not despair. For me, looking at things from your point of view on this really would make me feel like despairing! But everyone is different I guess.

I eventually realised that compassion and caring doesn't solve any problems. — AmadeusD

Doesn't solve problems for who? For you, or for the people being shown compassion and caring? If you are saying that compassion and caring doesn't solve any problems for those being shown compassion and caring, that doesn't seem to make sense to me. Isn't it compassion and caring that results in people taking action to help others?

Are you trying to apply mathematical operations to English? Because
* "It is set in stone that there is nothing set in stone" and
* "It is not set in stone that there is something set in stone"
can mean completely different things, even though both are made of a negative with a positive. — Lionino

Maybe I need to rephrase the second one to: Nothing is set in stone, which is set in stone. I think I just didn't negate it enough at the beginning and make the statements firm enough. As far as I can see, both of these
"It is set in stone that there is nothing set in stone."
and
"Nothing is set in stone, which is set in stone."
end up meaning that nothing is set in stone, since they overall negate themselves. I cannot see other meanings, but maybe I am missing something?

We do use these positive/negative patterns in language, although when I was at school in the UK, it was always stressed that we should avoid them and that they are frowned upon due to how much confusion they tend to cause. Due to this, I think that most people in the UK are aware of them, if only to avoid using them. (Although, I do sometimes hear mostly younger people wrongly saying, "I didn't do nothing" to mean, "I didn't do anything." "I didn't do nothing" would mean that they did do something.)

I had a double negative question in a philosophy exam when I was studying in Canada, and I was so surprised that I thought for a moment they had made a mistake. They hadn't though. I asked the professor about it and he said it was a common type of question there. (Actually, it may be a common philosophy question in the UK too, but I wouldn't know, as I have never studied philosophy in the UK.)

I disagree with that. There are patterns and one of them is the purpose of perfection as a source of desire itself, the opposition force to fear, chaos. — Chet Hawkins

To me, this seems a little too black and white. Could this not simply be another way of us trying to confirm certainty for fear of acknowledging the grey, in between, uncertain area of things? Maybe there is no either end: perfection or chaos. Weirdly enough, I suspect that perfection and chaos may be the same thing...if they exist.

rascal energetic tornado — Chet Hawkins

Aren't all dogs amazing!? But I may be a little exhausted trying to keep up with that... although I'd have a good try!

36%, so far. — Rob J Kennedy

How does that compare to the average person?

I've just learned the René Descartes used to conduct horrific public vivisection of dogs, literally flaying them alive and nailing them to boards, to 'demonstrate' his conviction that animals are incapable of suffering, due to not being rational. — Wayfarer

Either he was extremely stupid or extremely cruel. Either way, for some reason, it doesn't surprise me about Descartes.

Are you an existentialist? — Rob J Kennedy

Is anyone?

I have had many border collies. They do all sorts of propositional things. Language is not required. The body and the now contain the message. — Chet Hawkins

It seems to be correct that language is not required, but it is not by any means redundant. We have a little Kokoni. Chances are you have never even heard of her breed, but she is constantly mistaken for a miniature border collie. And the funny thing is that she herds as well. The kokoni is an ancient Greek breed of dog, bred for the aristocracy as lap dogs and to entertain the children of the aristocracy. There are pictures of them on ancient artifacts, and yet, for some odd reason, they are only recognized in Greece as a specific breed and nowhere else. They have long and extremely soft fur. Their bark is extremely loud for their size (kokoni in Greek means 'little dog') but they rarely bark. They take time to attach themselves to a human, but once they do, they will stay loyal for life. Their average lifespan is 16 years and they do not suffer any specific illnesses apart from teeth issues. They can be as active as you want them to be, meaning that if you want to play, they do too. But they can also curl up and sleep soundly next to you for hours. She is our little treasure that someone threw away in a dumpster when she was 2 years old. We are the luckiest people to have found her. (although I would for sure take away the fact that someone threw her away in the first place if I could)

Sorry to go on about our dog, but I couldn't help it.

You are as certain as you are terrified. Fear is the origin of the need for certainty. — Chet Hawkins

I totally agree with this and have said this before. It makes sense to me. Certainty means security and predictability. But we have lived with uncertainty for a LONG time, but we seem to convince ourselves otherwise. As humans, we look for patterns in EVERYTHING, for the same reason: patterns represent predictability. However, I often think that patterns may be simply something we make up in our minds. Maybe there are no patterns at all. Maybe we just see them because it makes us feel more secure. But of course, I do not know for sure.

twisting language
— Beverley
You mean using logic? — Banno

No, I mean that I see it time and time again that someone will quote a positive negative to suggest that the result is positive, such as, it is set in stone that nothing is set in stone, meaning that something must be set in stone if only that it is set in stone that nothing is set in stone, This is nonsense, and to me, seems like twisting words to throw unnecessary confusion into the conversation. That it not logic.

Certainty in doubt is also a positive negative, meaning it results in a negative... seems pretty straight forward to me, unless I am missing something. (But then I always doubt myself, so I could well be getting something wrong)

Certainty is absurd! — Chet Hawkins

Again, why are you so adamant about this? — Banno

You are only as certain as how much you can convince yourself of certainty.

Is it set in stone that nothing is set in stone?
— Banno

Yes. Therefore something is set in stone. Therefore it is not set in stone that nothing is set in stone. Therefore nothing is set in stone. This is a paradox! Exactly. Further showing how nothing is set in stone. — Lionino

I see this kind of attempt at twisting language and meaning so often, and it amazes me that people seem to fall for it. This does not magically mean that something is set in stone, unless I am missing something. It means the opposite. If we consider the following, we can see why: (BTW I am sure many others see this too, but I do very often notice misunderstandings regarding the same positive/negative wordings)
It is set in stone that there is nothing set in stone -- positive and negative = negative, meaning there is nothing set in stone
It is not set in stone that there is something set in stone -- negative and positive = negative, meaning there is nothing certain
It is set in stone that something is set in stone --- positive and positive = positive, meaning that something is set in stone.
It is not set in stone that there is nothing set in stone --- negative and negative = positive, meaning that something is set in stone
I mean, am I missing something or is it this simple? Maybe I got it all wrong, and I cannot see how????

I disagree for reasons already explained. I don't require anyone to agree with me about anything. — Truth Seeker

Not a problem at all. It would be a really boring world if we all agreed with everything ;)

I'm probably not explaining it very clearly. I'll find some links from other philosophers to help you understand the counter arguments. Of course, you may not believe them, I'm not sure I do either, but they do throw doubt on 100 percent certainty.

No problem, you are entitled to your belief :)

Yes, even if the thoughts "aren't yours". In order to perceive thoughts handed to you externally, you first must *exist*. — flannel jesus

Not necessarily, you could be JUST thought, but even if we take that to be true, as mentioned, the cogito only works from the first person perspective, therefore, if the thoughts are not yours, you cannot say "I think".

I disagree. My body could be part of a simulation, hallucination, dream or illusion. What is 100% certainly real is the experience of being conscious. I could be a solipsistic soul without a body. I could be a soul in a body. I could be a body without a soul. In all three possibilities, I am real. By "I", I mean my sentience. — Truth Seeker

Your opinion/belief is valid, but you cannot (well, you can if you like, but it won't be true) say that something is 100 percent certain without 100 percent proof, which you cannot provide. I was just saying though, this is just one of many arguments against the cogito.

So the conclusion "I am" still follows — flannel jesus

Not if the thoughts are not yours. As other philosophers pointed out long ago, you cannot say, "I think" if the thoughts are not yours. This is just one of the many arguments, however, that throw doubt on the cogito. I'd find some links, but I'm travelling at the moment. I'll find some later :)

Are you not even certain about typing in English? Surely, you can be certain that you are not typing in Japanese or another language? — Truth Seeker

I cannot even be 100 percent sure that there is such a thing as Japanese or English, or languages. 100 percent certainty is a strange concept because there is no evidence of such a thing in the known universe, as far as I can tell. But if someone can offer proof of something being 100 percent certain with no possible room for any doubt whatsoever, then I'd be interested to hear about it.

Now, do I BELIEVE that I am typing Japanese? No. Of course, I cannot say for sure, but I think it is unlikely. (I'd be really impressed with myself if I was! ;) ) But do I believe that there is such a thing as 100 percent certainty? To me, it seems so unlikely, simply because I see no evidence of it. Therefore, it could just as easily be something we made up in our minds, as real as a unicorn or griffin, but more powerful than that because it is something many people really desperately want, such as Descartes, which is evidenced by the extremes he put himself through to try to prove it. Of course, he didn't. He simply convinced himself that he did because he wanted it so much because uncertainty, particularly in times of great change like he was living through at the time, is unnerving.

The 'I' is the weakness in this statement. It is not 100 percent certain that the person thinking is you.
— Beverley

I think it is — flannel jesus

'Think' being the operative word here. You may believe it is, but belief is not 100 percent proof or certainty. It is impossible to prove without a shadow of a doubt that there is not someone, or thing, else making you believe the thoughts are yours. In that case, you cannot say, 'I think', and since the cogito only works from the first person perspective, it fails. The 'thing' controlling the thoughts that you perceive of as coming from you could be the evil demon that Descartes spoke of, or pretty much anything. It doesn’t even have to be a being. You could be like a computer controlled by the forces of the universe. There are just so many possibilities of what COULD be happening regarding the thoughts you perceive of. (I wrote a paper on this but had to cut out LOADS of it because I was coming up with so many different possible scenarios that the paper was thousands of words over the word limit! lol) This is why 100 percent certainty is so problematic, because, since it demands such precision, it opens itself up to the smallest of possibilities.

I personally do not think I am a computer, or the made up thoughts of an evil demon, but there is no way of 100 percent proving otherwise. But let's just say that I am the thoughts of an evil being who is creating the illusion that is my life, I cannot worry about this because I would drive myself insane. I guess if this became apparent at any point, then I would deal with it then, or maybe I would simply disappear. Maybe when the illusion is broken, there is no more me, or there never was because I am the illusion. But anyway, for now, I am pretty happy to believe in the illusion, if it is one.

I don't think it is worth being concerned about, nor is the idea that there is no 'I' at the foundations of 'my' experince. — Tom Storm

I come to the same conclusion.

Philosophim — Philosophim

Thanks, I will digest this and get back to you. Sorry, I admit, I didn't read all of the comments on here as there are a lot. Thanks for reposting your earlier comments, I appreciate your patience.

As such, I believe that labeling a transexual person as 'transgendered' creates confusion and harm. — Philosophim

I'm am just intrigued to understand why and how you think this creates harm.

"I i think therefore I am" seems like the only justifiable 100% certainty to me — flannel jesus

The 'I' is the weakness in this statement. It is not 100 percent certain that the person thinking is you. As far as I can see, there is NO 100 percent certainty about anything, no matter how much we wish there was.

“Unusual” I can understand but “original” seems unimportant. — Arbü1237

Does anybody produce 'original' ideas?

‘My’ Agios Nikolaos, as I call it. I am greedy. It is the town in eastern Crete, Greece, where I lived for 11 years, met so many friends— and my husband— the place that stole my heart, and so many others’ that I know.
I left in 2011. Funnily enough, I do not ever recall talking about philosophy whilst there. I didn’t even know what philosophy was until I discovered it in 2021 in Canada, of all places!

So, no, it isn't that nothing morally good exists; but, rather, that nothing 100% morally good exists. Perhaps we can find common ground there (; — Bob Ross

Yes, I do think that makes a lot more sense, to me anyway.

However... and I don't like this 'however' because I feel as if I want to agree. You have stood your ground and responded to so many different comments on here, and some have been pretty tough. I wonder if I could have done that?

But my nature is to look at things from ALL viewpoints, so that I may get a clearer idea of what I think is true. I question everything, myself included. I always have. Therefore, when I first 'found' philosophy, it fitted so much into how I seem to see things, and I tend to think that this is what philosophy is all about, reflected in the way that Socrates encouraged people to question their knowledge.

Bearing this in mind, the first thing that I thought of when I read your response was that, if we can accept that nothing is 100 percent perfect, then I wonder if any definition can be 100 percent perfect either. Now, I get the feeling you are going to say something about an 'ideal' of something, or some definition, being 100 percent perfect. But that just seems to return us to the problem of an 'ideal' being something that may not be real.

Okay, but here is another thought I've had: I've been trying to figure out how harmony can equal goodness, and it occurred to me that people whose lives have, through no fault of their own, unfortunately led to disharmony often seek to redress the imbalance in their lives by trying to bring harmony into other people's lives. In other words, people who have experienced 'bad' things often seek to help others who have experienced similar 'bad' things. This brings to my mind many different thoughts, but firstly, can I just ask, would you tend to respond that those people are not in harmony, and hence cannot be classed as 'good', because there is an imbalance in this situation? The imbalance is due to the fact that, by them helping others when they are at a disadvantage themselves, and not in harmony, then they are giving more than they are receiving, and hence are causing more imbalance? This seems strange to me, but it is the only way I can see to fit with your idea of harmony equaling goodness in this situation. I admit, I may be missing something, as I have not studied ethics, and I am just going by my own thoughts.

And also, this whole notion that there is some kind of behaviour-transcending "perfection" can be utilized to justify any action that the believer believes is consonant with it. ie. it is a rationality which is conducive to the abuses of extremism. Very dangerous. — Pantagruel

This idea of universal perfection seems to get more bizarre the more I think about it.

First of all, I still fail to see how we would proceed if everything was perfect. What would be the motivation to do anything?

I suppose we could assume that once universal perfection was reached, there could be no going back, as in, nothing could slip back into imperfection because, well, everything would be perfect, so there would be no flaws, and therefore, possibility of regression. (Hmm, I can’t help but feeling a sense of being trapped in this case. It seems unsettling.)

Okay so, if everyone was perfect then everyone would have to live in perfect equality, otherwise, one person would be at an advantage, and that situation would be imperfect. Everyone would need to have access to the same facilities, food etc If I had one more carrot than my neighbour, or Joe Bloggs who lives on the other side of the globe, then that would constitute an imperfection. And here we already begin to see how this situation seems impossible.

Furthermore, there could be no illness, as that would be an imperfection. But if there was no illness, then surely people could not die. They could not die from failure of their bodies, but it would seem as if they could not die from accidents either, because they would be the result of imperfections. What about natural disasters? Well, an earthquake would represent a pretty bit imperfection, so that could not happen. But then the structure of the earth would have to be perfected somehow, as would the structure of all celestial bodies. The sun, for example, appears to be pretty destructive and imperfect, however, of course, we need the sun. Somehow, the sun, and all stars, would have to be changed, in fact, the whole structure and ‘design’ of the universe would need to change. Could it be done? It seems like utter nonsense to me.

But strangely, if everything was perfect— which some may think would be extremely good— then conversely, it seems as if ‘good’ may not even be possible any longer. You couldn’t point to something and say, “That is a good…” because everything would be perfect, so one thing could not be better than the other. Also, if there was no hardship, and nobody needed to struggle or try, then a selfless act, carried out by someone who does not benefit from it, means nothing because that person doesn’t need any benefit because everything around them would be perfect. And anyway, there would be nobody that needed a selfless act. There would be no point in goodness. It seems as if goodness is only relevant in contrast to badness, but if there is no badness, then goodness would be irrelevant. So, this universal perfection, which is supposed to be ultimately good, cannot be good anymore, and seems to contradict itself.

Is it just me, or does this perfect world seem to be the most annoying, boring and uninspiring place? I have a vision in my head of everyone walking around with some kind of fake smile on their faces (Maybe this is from a movie I have seen. I can imagine this as a movie, only the fake smiling people end up not being perfect as first thought and turn into mass murderers lol) However I try to picture this idea of a perfect world, it turns out being incredibly bad. But it could be just me.

Also, I admit, there may be flaws in my assessment of a perfect universe, but I still think it would turn out being nonsensical.

Your entire OP is based upon a false definition followed by an unending stream of equivocation between goodness and perfection, which are manifestly not the same thing, as pretty much everyone has agreed, except for you. Trying to further equivocate with harmony only makes your reasoning more precarious.

The primary historical meaning of goodness is not perfection, it is virtue, which is understood to be independent of pragmatic concerns. This is why it is possible to do good, to do the right thing, even in the face of overwhelming odds, even when the right or good actions fail. This is the entire significance of deontological ethics. Indeed, many philosophers believe (and I agree) that actions which are done out of pragmatism do not qualify as moral; rather, only those actions which are done out of the sense of duty. — Pantagruel

This makes so much sense to me. I haven't studied ethics, but this simply makes sense. Hooray!

What exactly are you questioning the facticity of (in my view)? — Bob Ross

I am questioning the idea of anything being perfect. I am saying that it could be impossible, or simply a made up concept, since there is no evidence of it. If this is the case, according to your definition, goodness also does not exist. Now, something is clearly amiss here. This would suggest that there is something wrong with your definition.

Firstly, the examples I gave are examples of actual perfection; but they do not exemplify necessarily anything in the actual world. — Bob Ross

yes, I see that.

My response to this is to note that this is an ideal and, as such, does not need to be 100% actualizable to be impactful in ethics. Every major ethical theory, and any worth any salt, are driven, at their core, by ideals and not the limitations of the foreseeable, actual world. — Bob Ross

Okay, that is fine if you accept that. But it still stands that, since there are no concrete examples of these, they are no more provable than beings with pink and yellow spots. Just because YOU BELIEVE them to be true, it doesnt mean that they are. As your belief, that is fine, and i totally respect that, but if you want to state this as a fact, you need to back it up with proof. And there is no concrete proof from real life, as we know it.

Hey look, I think it is a wonderful idea. How amazing would it be if we had no pain, or strife or war and conflict. If we all lived in harmony with each other, and if we all realized that we are all pretty much the same and hence, we all cared for each other because we could all see from each other's point of view.

But unfortunately, this never happens. It is sad, but what actually happens is this: there is a majority of people in this world who just want to be happy and have the basic things, such as food, water, shelter and companionship and respect from others. Then there are a very slight minority who are power greedy and think, if I can con enough people, then I can feel better and be better than all those other people. The only thing is that, they are kidding themselves, and not only are they kidding themselves, but they are hurting others at the same time.

I do not see you as a power crazy person who doesn't care about others at all. I could be wrong I suppose, but I think not. I just do not see any examples of perfection in real life, and this makes me think that they do not exist, which I don't think is unreasonable. Now of course, I could be wrong. But so could you. Which person would i prefer to be wrong? Of course, i would prefer me to be wrong, and for there to be the possibility of a perfectly good world with everyone living in harmony with each other. How amazing would that be?

Have you not seen something that is in an optimal degree of self-harmony and self-unity such that its parts produce a task incredibly efficiently? — Bob Ross

But there is nothing that is PERFECTLY efficient and harmonious, and this is what your definition stipulated.

Have you not experienced a state of peace between things, as opposed to conflict and violence? — Bob Ross

Yes, but not PERFECT peace. Again, you stipulated perfection. There is no example of perfection due to something being in total harmony. This is why it is impossible to describe this kind of total harmony, because we only have a vague idea of what it would be, as we have never experienced it in real life.

Not to mention, some of them are just nonsense with no real evidence for them (such a the pink and yellow spotted beings); which is clearly not the case with my analysis of moral goodness. — Bob Ross

But unless you can see an example of this in real life, it is possible that it does not exist, or it is as likely to exist as the pink and yellow spotted beings. You are going into the realm of all things that MAY be possible, which could be anything, including pink and yellow spotted beings. This idea of something being in perfect harmony could simply be something you made up in your head.

Most people, I think, are able to comprehend what a state of harmony and unity is, just as much as what a spots of yellow and pink are. — Bob Ross

Sure, we may know what harmony and unity is, but not PERFECT harmony and unity. There is a massive difference. In real life, there is always something opposing perfect harmony.

One needs knowledge to act. In a world full of subjects with universal harmony and unity, actions still exist. Subjects are still doing things. — Bob Ross

What would we need to do if everything was perfect?

but this doesn’t mean we should strive for imperfection — Bob Ross

I agree with this because we need to strive for something, otherwise we lose the motivation to live. But i seriously doubt we will ever reach perfection, if it is even something that exists, or could exist.

I suggest that you read the entirety of me and Tom Storm’s interaction, because I gave several. — Bob Ross

I did see you giving an example of a calculator and a jungle, but i couldn't find an example where you explained how each part of it was in harmony. I don't think this would be possible, and that is the problem.

Universal harmony is just a state whereof everything is living and existing peacefully; which includes everything.

However, as you noted correctly, it is an ideal and may not be every actualizable down to the T; and we are far from it and we have limited resources; so it is perfectly reasonable to prioritize life over non-life, humans over other animals, etc. to try to progress towards it as best we can. — Bob Ross

But how can we progress towards something that MAY be possible, but that we can see no real example of in the world in which we live? In this case, it could be completely fictitious. Or how is this any different from such skeptics’ suggestions of, for example, the world being controlled by pink and yellow spotted beings, which are controlling our minds from brains stored in vats? This could be just as true as the idea of something being perfect due to existing in harmony with itself. In fact, the pink and yellow spotted beings seem to hold more weight because with them, at least we can give more details about the situation. Then, if one day, we all wake up and see pink and yellow spotted beings around us, we would know the ‘pink and yellow spotted being’ theory was true; we would be able to spot it (haha couldn’t resist the pun ;)).

But if we all woke up one day and everything was working in perfect harmony, would we all just automatically, magically know? Or, would we all be perfectly working in harmony too and therefore we would perfectly know and not even have to think about it? But if we were all perfect, why would we even have to know anything? There would be no point in knowing. What would be the point for anything if everything was totally perfect? So, from my point of view at least, that is not good. Bring me back varying levels of imperfection, and with it the joy of working bloody hard against all odds and seeing improvements and feeling a sense of real achievement. That to my imperfect mind is good. Bring back the people who, although not superheroes, fight for others who need help, despite achieving no obvious gain for themselves— the person who jumps in front of a gunman to save a life just purely on instinct. Not a perfect thing to do, but… *she takes a breath* am I making any sense at all? Does anybody think I’m making any sense? (In my head I am, but my head may be a very odd thing.)

Anyway, I think I got sidetracked somewhat, but what I was originally responding to was the notion of ‘progressing’ towards the idea of this ‘perfect’ good.

Can you demonstrate an instantiation of perfection about which we can all agree upon so that I can see what perfection 'looks' like? — Tom Storm

I am pretty sure the answer to that was 'no'.

I would be interested in your example of perfection. — Tom Storm

Still no evidence of one, at least that fits with what I've asked for below (which I think is what you were also looking for.)

Natural systems are in a constant process of evolution and change, so there is never any criterion for preferring one configuration over another, let alone a perspective from which to apply it. — Pantagruel

Pretty much impossible to say if or how it may achieve perfect harmony... unless one is perfect themselves of course.

You cannot just say there is moral goodness which is perfect and morally good, and no one really knows what the goodness is without the considerations. — Corvus

Yes, it makes me wonder, what is the point?

It seems to me as if we can only really understand what this type of perfection is exactly (not vaguely, as in imagining...

a jungle in which everything is in complete harmony and unity — Bob Ross

...but being able to list all the things exactly and say how they interact, and how they are in unity, if we are perfect ourselves. But since we are not, how can we achieve something that we cannot even describe or precisely imagine? How can we even attempt to proceed in that direction when we don’t even know which direction that is? (And this is all assuming that this thing is achievable and not simply a made-up thing) But furthermore, if this thing is not present in the world in which we now live, then how much use can imagining or discussing anything about it be? It seems as if we may as well discuss the pink and yellow spotted beings.

It is really difficult to have a productive conversation if you cannot contend with my responses. I am not sure how to proceed from here, but, then again, it seems like you aren't interested in having any conversation about it (and if that is the case, then we can end our conversation here: no problem).
— Bob Ross

Ok Bob. How does the perfect nuclear weapon fit into your schema? Since human beings are arguably impairing the perfect balance of our eco-sphere, utilizing the perfect nuclear weapon to erase humanity would seem to be an ideal example of goodness. — Pantagruel

The problem is that there will always be holes in philosophical ideas, some more than others. But even the best philosophers have holes in their theories. Whenever I post a reply to something, I am already aware of the holes in my viewpoint, but I'm not going to point them out lol. If someone sees them, great. It would be so boring if we all just took everything said as being 'perfectly' correct. (I'm not sure I believe that anything is perfect btw. It seems unlikely) Sometimes though, to address a hole, we need to change tack. It's all just a part of life's rich tapestry. Haha philosophy overdose! *she explodes*

Yes, I kind of figured. It was only a matter of time. — Pantagruel

Haha, I was biding my time, but not getting an answer, so you were probably right to forge ahead.

Ok Bob. How does the perfect nuclear weapon fit into your schema? Since human beings are arguably impairing the perfect balance of our eco-sphere, utilizing the perfect nuclear weapon to erase humanity would seem to be an ideal example of goodness. — Pantagruel

That is precisely where I was going. You took the words right out of my mouth ;)

hypothetical and actual) perfection is (are) identical to goodness (as a property); and so I would respond with, yes, something is 100% good only when it is 100% perfect (whether that be qua utility or qua perfection). — Bob Ross

I understand that you think that good is always perfect, but what I was wondering was do you think that perfection can ONLY be good?