I will bet that you moral sense, like mine, begins with some kind or reciprocity rule. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

First, let's be clear what we're discussing. "Good" is not an absolute term, as I've already said. But "moral sense" is something else again. For myself, my 'moral sense' is a lot like the conscience that Roman Catholics explained to me as they brought me up. It's telling right from wrong, in simple terms. I don't know how I do it. I have no conscious rule(s) or scheme(s) that I apply. But I find I can tell right from wrong ... to my own satisfaction, at least. I'm just not consciously aware of the myriad details that contribute to a judgement of that kind.

When the child grows up, he returns to take his rightful place as divine king... sound familiar?) — WerMaat

Indeed, as do many of the Eastern myths that were plagiarized for the bible.

Regards
DL

Maat isn't an analogy, she's the heart of my religion. — WerMaat

You expressed her well.

She beats Christian ideology by a mile by demanding that we think for ourselves.

Regards
DL

Our very own Esoteric Ecumenist Humanist. — Bitter Crank

Lucky place.

Regards
DL

in simple terms. I don't know how I do it. — Pattern-chaser

Sure you do.

All you need ask yourself is if you would like it for yourself.
As you seem to know.
You are a bit conflicted as you say you can then say you can't.
Which is it?
Do you trust your moral sense or not?

Regards
DL

I take the view that "good" is vague because the concept it labels is a vague one. "Good" is relative to who or what the thing is good for/to. I see no problems with that. It allows for the co-existence of (good-for-humans) and NOT(good-for-mosquitoes), which reflects the RL situation of fighting malaria with insecticides. It's only when someone mistakes "good" for an absolute thing that problems arise. Problems such as the famous misunderstanding that is the 'Problem of Evil', which this topic addresses (at least partly). Good is demonstrably not absolute; why do we continue to use it as if it was? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

I've been thinking about this. "Good" seems to be some kind of special case. Yes, it's relative, in the sense that it isn't absolute, or 'mind-independent', but this seems to miss the important bit. "Good" requires contextual qualification before it becomes usefully meaningful. OK, as philosophers, we know that the context of any event that takes place in the universe is ... the universe. All of it. But we can relax that somewhat pedantic constraint a bit here, I think.

"Good" requires qualification of what it applies to, so that the intended meaning becomes clear. E.g. "good-for-mosquitoes", as above. Without that qualification, "good" is useless. It is meaningless to say "God is good" just as it is meaningless to say "The cat sat on the". Both statements are meaningless because they're incomplete, not because they're wrong.

Context is all is a well-known saying, but in this case, it's critical and fundamental. Yes? :chin:

Yes, it's relative, in the sense that it isn't absolute, or 'mind-independent', — Pattern-chaser

Of course it is mind dependent as our minds tell us how to react depending on if we are perceiving a good or an evil.

You will decide if this reply is good or evil. Right?

That is mind dependant, unless you are a brain dead sheeple..

Regards
DL

Of course it is mind dependent [...] unless you are a brain dead sheeple. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Yes, as I said. Why phrase it as though I was claiming it to be mind-independent? :chin:

Pardon?

Regards
DL

You just repeated what I said, but phrased it as though you were disagreeing. :chin:

I agreed then put a caveat.

Regards
DL