I'm a little unclear what it would mean for something like Germany to not be objective. Does this mean it is not an objective fact that German surrendered in WWII? Is it not an objective fact that the Declaration of Independence was signed on July, 4th, 1776? Are there objective rules to chess? What about objective truths of arithmetic (which is often considered a "game" like chess)?

I apologize for being difficult to understand. No, it is an objective fact that Germany surrendered in WWII. However, all nations, including the nation of Germany (what I specifically spoke of) do not exist objectively. They exist through mutual agreement between very large groups of humans. If those humans no longer agree that a nation exists, it doesn't. Try traveling to the USSR. Similarly, while it is an objective fact that murder is illegal essentially everywhere and is against the moral code of most humans, this fact is an amalgamation of many individual subjective viewpoints of a large group of humans.

I reckon it would be short of impossible to pin down an absolute Good outside of theist-oriented beliefs

If using just "short of impossible" means: functionally impossible, then we're in agreement. As to theisticly originated beliefs, they seem at first glance to be (internally) objective, after all they're written down right there in this physical Book. However, ultimately some human at some point originated the contents of the Book (leaving aside what or who inspired that human). Thus to a third person observer, which is everyone in the current era, the Book's contents are at least partially subjective.

As to your sentence, no I don't agree with it (as written), I'd put it thusly: Good/Evil and Right/Wrong definitely exist, not unlike the existence of money, Germany and Apple Corporation. Similarly, they are, like money very important both theoretically and practically. However, all of the above do not exist objectively, rather inter subjectively.

I'm a tad suprised that I have to point this out, but okay. Sure every society debates good vs evil, it's popular. However, what qualifies as "good" in Kabul and Amsterdam can be quite different (since good is subjective individually and inter subjective collectively). It's common for moral objectivists to trot out low hanging fruit such as murdering babies when attempting to demonstrate their worldview, since it has a >99% agreement rate among "normal" folk. But ignore topics like welfare assistance which has a 40/60 split.

And that's an opinion, perhaps. But it's what we agree upon.

Actually your comments don't counter mine. I said "good" is subjective, you're saying a majority have (subjectively) agreed on some common meanings of "good". The two are compatible.

"Good", like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, that is, it is a subjective (and relative) descriptor. It can mean many and different things.

Veganism? A fine topic, I suppose, but hardly the yardstick by which morality is measured.

Care to elaborate or provide some examples/proof, beyond just conclusions/opinions?

IMO you are absolutely correct on the subject matter you stipulated, namely: what makes us "find a person attractive". My point is that what I believe this thread is about, specifically visual beauty, is but one component of that complex equation. I don't believe it's as important as the OP does, but it does deserve it's own discussion.

It's a question of perspective. From the perspective of third persons, say your family waiting at home, you are arriving having been cured. For them it is a miracle. From the perspective of the doctor and staff, they're creating facsimiles and they're committing murder. From your own perspective, you're murdered. From the facimile's perspective, they were cured and they're you.

Two things. First, while some can try to appear "deeper" by declaring that in their opinion human "beauty" goes well beyond what an eye can see, that just makes communication difficult when the subject matter under discussion has multiple definitions.

Second, when there are modern techniques to create beauty through surgery, drugs, exercise, cosmetics, fashion and Photoshop, the increase in the commonality of beauty, makes the absence of beauty more functionally important (see: incel).

The fact it mainstream media is awash with superficial messaging that beauty = good which bleeds into the morals, or lack thereof, of what the average person esteems towards

I agree with you that media is saturated with beauty, but we agree why that is, right? Media seeks to sell stuff. Beauty sells.

But do you really equate media with culture? I don't. Regardless, are you an "average person" that you reference above? I didn't think so. Sounds like we're in agreement.

I get what you're trying to say, but in my experience beauty (you're talking about human beauty) isn't necessarily "valued" highly, if highly means deeply. Rather beauty is easily and instantly recognized and thus appreciated. Though it's easy availability in the media, makes it rather superficial and thus not very valuable individually. Or to put it another way, if you're on a dating app you'll see any number of profiles showcasing "beauty", so you can go on an almost unlimited number of dates with beautiful people. However, the vast majority will be single dates because there's no connection (best case scenario), or something seriously wrong with your beautiful date. So whatever qualities your soulmate possesses is "valuable", because it's rare. Beauty isn't rare.

So having an opinion about an ad is drastically different than having an opinion about someone talking about an ad?

You're on the right track. A fake Mona Lisa is a reproduction than is tryimg to pass as the original (as opposed to a copy, which might just be an exercise taken by the painter as practice). Whereas a fake, fake Mona Lisa isn't the original, rather it can be an original piece of art that is, say a parody of the numerous attempts at faking the original.

Of course humans can find meaning in the meaningless. Haven't you seen animals in clouds? Are you familiar with the "deciphering" of Nostradomus?

I think you're vastly overestimating the value of truth and honesty, or vastly underestimating tolerance of cheating and lawbreaking if it is perpetrated by folks on "our side".

Especially now, in the Post Truth era.

Yes, the lag is real, but if you think about it a non-lag situation is essentially impossible. It's more about the size of the lag.

I'm not equating lag with the classic understanding of memories. Or to put it another way, the definition of the term "real time" is from the perspective of the individual, not a third person observer with a stopwatch.

Why? Because of the definitions of the words. Perhaps you're proposing at a certain point a facsimile becomes indistinguishable from an original.

Great viewpoint. Basically is there a difference between experiencing last Wednesday in real time (on Wednesday) and remembering Wednesday on Saturday? I say there is, that is living life is more than your memories at time X.

Exactly. The only unanswered question isn't: "is a facsimile an original?" It's: "is a person's self defined by more than it's physical body and it's memories?".

Well, if the transporter didn't kill you when you entered at the source (such that now there are two "yous"), everyone would call the machine a people fax instead of a transporter and you would be the original and the person at the destination would be the facsimile. Thus the "transporter" isn't a transporter at all, it's a fax machine that destroys originals.

Debating gun safety along the axes of murder victimhood vs murder prevention, while ignoring the reality that most US gun deaths are suicides, is missing the point.

No doubt, owning a gun decreases the average life expectancy of the owner. Mostly because gun ownership makes suicide attempts much more likely to result in death. And of course most gun deaths in the US are suicides (not murders). In addition, this effect is increased when gun related accidents (an admittedly small number) are added to the huge suicide number, since they are almost always situations where the gun owner and their family are the victims. The home defense benefit of guns is laughably tiny, statistically and plays essentially no relative role in increasing the life expectancy of gun owners, like myself. Basically, if you are at high risk of victimhood, whereby you "need" a gun for that purpose, you're likely going to benefit more from moving to a different location or modifying who you interact with and/or how you interact with them.

To me gun ownership makes sense if you're at very low risk of suicide and you get something positive out of the gun. Say hunting, target shooting, collecting, skeet etc.

For the purposes of the OP, conservative means Socially conservative.

R3JlYXQgcHV6emxlLiBJIHRoaW5rIHRoYXQgdGhlIGJsdWUgZXllZCBwZW9wbGUgd291bGQgbGVhdmUgb24gdGhlIGh1bmRyZWR0aCBkYXksIGV2ZXJ5b25lIGVsc2Ugd291bGQgc3RheSBmb3JldmVyLiBFYWNoICBibHVlIGV5ZWQgcGVyc29uIHdvdWxkIHNlZSA5OSB3aXRoIGJsdWUgZXllcyBhbmQgdGhlIG9wdGlvbnMgYXJlOiBpZiB0aGV5IGhhdmUgYmx1ZSAoMTAwIHRvdGFsKSBvciB0aGV5IGRvbid0IHNvIHRoZXJlJ3MganVzdCB0aGUgOTkgd2l0aCBibHVlIHRoZXkgc2VlLiBJbiBhZGRpdGlvbiwgZm9yIHRoZSA5OSB0aGV5IG9ic2VydmUgd2l0aCBibHVlLCB0aGUgb3B0aW9ucyBhcmUgdGhvc2UgY2FuIHNlZSA5OSBpZiB0aGUgZmlyc3Qgb25lIGhhcyBibHVlLCBvciA5OCBpZiB0aGV5IGRvbid0LiBFdmVyeW9uZSBrbm93cyB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIGlzbid0IG9ubHkgMSB3aXRoIGJsdWUsIG5vdCBvbmx5IGJlY2F1c2UgdGhleSBjYW4gc2VlIDk5IG9yIDEwMCwgYnV0IGFsc28gYmVjYXVzZSBubyBvbmUgbGVmdCB0aGUgZmlyc3QgbmlnaHQsIHdoaWNoIGEgbG9naWNpYW4gd2hvIHNhdyBubyBvbmUgd2l0aCBibHVlIGV5ZXMgd291bGQgZG8uIFNpbWlsYXJseSB0aGV5IGtub3cgdGhlcmUgYXJlbid0IDIgd2l0aCBibHVlIGJlY2F1c2UgaWYgMiBsb2dpY2lhbnMgc2F3IDEgd2l0aCBibHVlIGFuZCBubyBvbmUgbGVmdCBvbiB0aGUgZmlyc3QgZGF5LCB0aGV5J2Qga25vdyB0aGV5IGhhZCBibHVlLiBUaHVzIHdoZW4gbm8gb25lIGxlYXZlcyBvbiBkYXkgOTksIGVhY2ggYmx1ZSBleWVkIHBlcnNvbiBrbm93cyB0aGUgYmx1ZSBleWVkIHBlb3BsZSB0aGV5IGNhbiBzZWUsIGRvbid0IHRoZW1zZWx2ZXMgc2VlIDk4LCB0aGVyZWZvcmUgdGhleSBtdXN0IGhhdmUgYmx1ZSBleWVzLiBTbyB0aGV5IGFsbCBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbmV4dCBkYXkuIFRoZSBicm93biBleWVkIHBlb3BsZSBoYXZlIG5vIGNsdWUgd2hhdCB0aGVpciBleWUgY29sb3IgaXMsIHRoZXkganVzdCBrbm93IGl0IGlzbid0IGJsdWUu

I don't know what that means, I'll just delete it.

Great puzzle. I think that...

When folks play dumb, sometimes I buy in and explain, other times I don't bother. It's only mildly annoying.

"Painting" can be a noun or a verb. Rothko's red rectangle is a noun. The guy with the roller is performimg the verb.

I don't disagree with your observations, but having legally competent, but computationally suboptimal citizens excluded from a voice in how they're governed is essentially an oligarchy. And the slope sliding from meritocracy to plutocracy is an exceedingly slippery one.

Oh you don't need to explain Britain Trump to me, I get it. But the goal, in my opinion, when determining voter eligibility policy isn't to try to exclude legally competent simpletons, rather to include all competent adults and separately cultivate a robust education system and media. Which worked well... until the Interweb put any ol' crackpot on the same visibility as professional journalism. That plus algorithms that forward incrementally more extreme sites to generate clicks.

Voting should be restricted to legally competent adults.

Why? Because, the vast majority of the population has committed no murders nor rapes. You know this. Your theory is that a majority of folks would murder and rape except that they're afraid of the legal system. Personally I'm not interested in murder and rape regardless of whether I could get away with it or not. In my experience you're underestimating the number of folks who DON'T use the illegality of murder and rape as the primary reason they don't perform those acts.

We could have been having this discussion in Washington state in 2011, at the time 9% of folks there smoked weed, one could suppose that lots feared the illegality of Marijuana, however currently only 30% of Washingtonians smoke weed, so about 21% wanted to smoke weed AND were not doing so because it was illegal. 70% just aren't interested in Marijuana. I'm not interested in murder and rape.

Well your scenario is that the perception of retribution is lost. So for the portion of society that 1) is prone to do "bad" things on a regular basis AND 2) only doesn't currently do that because of the risk of societal retribution, the answer is: yes, having lost their reason for holding back on doing bad things routinely, they'll do them repetitively. The question is, how many people fit both criteria? You're supposing that's at least 51% of all people. That's not my read of the situation.

From my perspective, you're making an error by declaring that performing a (single) "bad" action makes someone a "bad" person. In my experience, all humans perform bad actions, thus the difference between folks is the quantity and quality of those bad choices.

By definition, no. If almost everyone does something, that makes them "average", not "bad" on a spectrum from "good" to "bad".

I'm not detecting answers to my questions, so I guess we can't converse.

So many details left out of the OP. Do you believe (as I do) that "good" and "evil" are subjective descriptors? If not, whose definition of the terms is the objectively correct one? In your experience, do most acts of "evil" occur because someone had a warped set of moral codes, say believing that murder is okay, or because of a failure to follow a standard set of moral codes, that is believing murder is wrong, but performing it anyway because of desiring the payoff if they did?

The human condition only makes people depressed!

Exactly. The numerous negative events that can and do occur contribute to great feelings of sadness and grief. While some can deal with these events and avoid these sad feelings, that is atypical and many and likely most will experience them. That's a normal reaction and while this normal reaction can be addressed philosophically, for example by focusing on it's normality, to great benefit, having clinical depression in the absence of negative events probably will reap fewer philosophical insights.

I would like to find out philosophy and ideas to face depression. I don't want to know why we experience depression in our lives. I already accepted that this comes and goes sooner or later. I believe it is key to try to live with this mental condition

Let me put it this way. Do you consider it "normal" to experience depressive symptoms when addressing numerous events in one's life which are very "depressing" (in lay terms)? I do. What is evidence of an "illness" (as opposed to a natural reaction) is experiencing depressive symptoms in the absence of any significant negative experiences.