That isn't a falsification of anything I have said. Try again.

Why would you read my comment as if it was supposed to be a falsification of something?

Because that's how you use language.

And what did I seem to be saying I was falsifying?

Your initial definition/proposition is simply a circular logic/affirmation of the consequent fallacy.

Try again.

You cannot read.

Explain what is circular...

Defining what is circular has already been done by Aristotle and others even more current. You need to look it up. Not plague me to educate you.

IE you can't demonstrate any circularity.

And what did I seem to be saying I was falsifying? — Terrapin Station

Come to think of it, you've used language yet you haven't said anything.

Come to think of it, you've used language yet you haven't said anything. — Harry Hindu

So I didn't seem to be saying that I was falsifying anything. I agree.

and if you weren't falsifying anything I said, then you haven't said anything useful. What is useful is what you haven't said (you haven't falsified anything).

lol re thinking that people only say useful things to you when they falsify things you said.

That isn't what I said. I only said that you haven't said anything useful in this thread. You haven't said anything useful regarding my claims, or even in making your own claims on this topic.

Lol re you seem to think that "you" means "everyone".

So why is it only in this thread and from me that there's nothing useful for you if I'm not falsifying something you said, but in other contexts and/or from other people, they can be useful if they're not falsifying something you said?

It seems inappropriate to have to define good and evil.

Shouldn't good and evil be identified or discovered rather than labelled?

Otherwise you can arbitrarily label anything good or evil.

Shouldn't good and evil be identified or discovered rather than labelled? — Andrew4Handel

The problem is that if you're doing anything with this different than effectively making a laundry list for yourself, you quickly run into people who disagree with your take on what's good and what's evil, and then you wind up having to talk about that whether you want to or not.

Good is pleasure > pain for individual and groups.
Evil is pleasure < pain for individual and groups.

I see nothing arbitrary about the above definitions?

I don't see what other metric apart from pleasure/pain that could be used?

I see nothing arbitrary about the above definitions? — Devans99

It's arbitrary in the sense of it being you talking about how you feel about it. You're not reporting a fact. (Well, not beyond reporting the fact of how you feel about it.)

I am talking about the process of identifying good and evil. I don't think pleasure and pain identify what evil and good are.

I would not consider a painful injury evil and I would certainly not call all pleasure good such as the pleasures Nazi's or slave owners experienced.

I think identifying what is an evil act is complicated when you analyse a scenario. For example is it evil for us to buy goods manufactured in China which is a brutal regime with no human rights committing many abuses of its populace regions and minorities?.

I don't think it is meaningful just to identify pleasure and a pain. But what I am saying is before you need to define evil you should already have a consciousness it. For example if you see someone kicking a dog to death it seems ludicrous to need to go beyond the immediate manifestation to work out if it is evil.

I think complex forms of evil like exploitation where you have to follow a chain of causality and blame do not succumb easily to a pain-pleasure analysis. Therefore it needs a more sophisticated intuition or investigation including intention.

Good is pleasure > pain for individual and groups.
Evil is pleasure < pain for individual and groups.

I see nothing arbitrary about the above definitions?

I don't see what other metric apart from pleasure/pain that could be used? — Devans99

The way the individual or group views pain/pleasure while perhaps not quite arbitrary will be different between individuals and groups (and with individuals within a group) and in the sense that the differences in how pain/pleasure is viewed
Are based on the experiences of the individual or group I think “arbitrary” is close enough to refute what you are claiming.

But what I am saying is before you need to define evil you should already have a consciousness it. For example if you see someone kicking a dog to death it seems ludicrous to need to go beyond the immediate manifestation to work out if it is evil. — Andrew4Handel

Don't you think that what people are doing in defining it is attempting an abstraction/general/overarching conception of their intuitions?

I would not consider a painful injury evil and I would certainly not call all pleasure good such as the pleasures Nazi's or slave owners experienced — Andrew4Handel

You would certainly not call a painful injury good so by process of elimination it must be evil?

Nazi's were punished for what they did so it was net pain, hence evil for them.

Slave owners became fat and decadent. They where hated. Some where punished for what they did. So it was net pain, hence evil for them also.

There are some difficult to call situations. China I think sanctions would cause more pain than pleasure so it would be evil. It would cripple the world economy I mean.

The way the individual or group views pain/pleasure while perhaps not quite arbitrary will be different between individuals and groups (and with individuals within a group) and in the sense that the differences in how pain/pleasure is viewed — DingoJones

Humans are quite similar in most respects and the pain/pleasure experienced by the individual can be summed to give the corresponding pain/pleasure for the group. I'll give two examples:

Exercise is good for the individual. Its painful in the short term but gives pleasure in the long term so there is net pleasure for the individual so it is good/right. It makes the group stronger having a heathy individual so the group also benefits in the long term (net pleasure good/right).

Murder is bad for the individual. In the short term it maybe 'convenient' and possibly a sadist would derive some pleasure from it. In the long term, the individual will be shunned from the group and maybe punished. So it is net pain for the individual. It is also net pain for the group having lost an individual and his ideas and capabilities.

So most fundamental decisions can be analysed as above. I don't see anything arbitrary about this type of analysis?

You would certainly not call a painful injury good so by process of elimination it must be evil? — Devans99

False dichotomy.

Re your nets, aside from the fact that you said nothing about it being a net matter earlier, just how are you doing a calculus on this?

In both examples, it is your own views on pleasure and pain you are using. The person exercising could lament not lazing about playing video games and see excersise as not worth the trade-off. The murderer might very well not care at all about being shunned or punished.
We can go back and forth like this forever, you can make sweeping statements about the way people think and I can come up with exceptions, all that does is prove my point.

Exercise is good for the individual. — Devans99

When you get an individual who says, "I disagree, I feel that exercise is bad" what do you do--tell them they don't actually think that? Say, "Well, you're a very unusual outlier, so that makes you wrong" or what?

The same goes for an individual who says, "No, I don't feel that pleasure is good and pain is bad."

Pleasure and pain by definition pertain to good and bad. It doesnt make sense to say “I dont think pleasure is good”.
The problem arises when you are trying to tell people what gives them pleasure or pain, such as with the excersise example.

Pleasure and pain by definition pertain to good and bad. — DingoJones

First off, definitions aren't facts beyond being reports of how some people are choosing to use terms.

Aside from that, pleasure and pain don't by conventional definition pertain to moral good and bad.

Ok, sure. Things can still be held to the definition we assign to them.
Your second sentence I agree with also, but Devons99 is trying to make a case otherwise.