I almost feel TCATHR is a literal counter to this whole notion — schopenhauer1

The quote is an opinion that does not address the logic that I wrote which lead to the conclusion. Here is the original logic if you were unaware of it. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1

I think death is the great male - the true cyan to our true magneta(life). I don't see death as the end, but rather the force of all simulation(the paint in our mind's eye, per se). In death, things are different. There is no morality for the non life, it's only life that experiences morality. The sky lives, it isn't just a simulation, it making a imprint in our mind is - that part is simulated. All life tries to be moral at some point, some like skies, more than others. There's no progression, and therefore no pleasure, without being moral. The suns light will not be received if it doesn't be moral, and it's sort of hardwired into its shape to seek it's light above others - to continue existing, to the point it couldn't really be immoral.

The Sun is life - but it may not be conscious. In a way, it could be conscious in some format encircling what it is, it doesn't have to be exactly like a soul inside, it may be a small glint, it may be something else.

:up:

A corollary to my Ligotti post above from @Philosophim's other "existence should be" thread...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/904196

Have you read any Schopenhauer? I couldn't think of a better philosopher that presents an exact counter to your claim that existence is inherently good, and at the same time still argues there is something "objective" about morality.. He is really a tour de force in both discussing the suffering of existence and the morality of compassion that still results from a negative view of existence.. So for your own sake, I would engage with the philosopher who would most contend your claim..

Have you read any Schopenhauer? I couldn't think of a better philosopher that presents an exact counter to your claim that existence is inherently good — schopenhauer1

To note again, there is a previous post that puts out the proof that existence is good in any objective morality. Its the link at the top. Feel free to go there and post a counter. Otherwise you're not talking about the OP, but some other idea in your head. That's a straw man. So go read please.

In other words, @Philosophim wants you to pretend, along with him, that the OP's argument presented on his other thread (link to it in this OP) has not been refuted (e.g. ) and thereby for you to carry on with the refuted premise of this thread. :smirk:

Didn't you tell me earlier you believed what was moral was for humans to flourish? How exactly are you helping that right now? Enough trolling my threads. You've said your piece, we've discussed, move on.