What are the reasons of them being good and bad?
How do we distinguish one from other? — RBS

I guess to try to answer this complex question it depends a lot of your knowledge in ethics. "good" and "bad" are terms which fluctuate a lot along the decades. For example: in 1900 the women didn't have right to vote in the elections. Now, this is consider "bad" but back in those days were "good" and accepted. But not necessarily, there were always been a lot of people who despite the circumstances they tried to redifine the concepts of good/bad with the objective of establishing an equilibrium.

If it is related to each individual then not all goods are good and not all bads are bad. — RBS

You perfectly nailed it here. Nevertheless I guess there are general terms that are consider bad for the normal people. For example, killing each other, making wars and animal abuse. I think if someone interpret these actions actions as good they are just illness.
But the complexity comes when we are speaking about more abstract/dilemma terms. Is it good steal money from a corrupt politician? Or is it bad because I would act the same way as the corrupt one? Hmm...
Sometimes the narrow line between good and bad is free to interpret.

Interesting. Is it safe to assume we are talking about Subjective and Objective truth's? Perhaps one can think of their own sentience as their own unique language onto themselves, nevertheless, their own subjective truth... ? — 3017amen

I think yes. Probably out here there is only one truth in the end of the day. We can call it tangible world (for example) that show us to how truly is, without any kind of interpretation. Nevertheless, humans tend to be so abstract because we are capable of living in two worlds: tangible and abstract (or ideas) because our amazing knowledge provides us this skill. Using the ideas we were creating a lot of important things along our existence. But these are free interpretation. Every person, itself, will has their own language but the same reality. Some would agree in a same point, others probably don't but it is still good because there is nothing bad about seeing and speaking the same reality with different language.

I'm thinking we would simply not be able to react to a stimulus that say's...' I don't like what he/she just said, so therefore I'm going to respond (using language of course) in like manner... '. We would be denying our own Will, or at least our intuition, etc. I think... . — 3017amen

Interesting thesis. I guess with this implication everything would be easier because we would be capable of using vocabulary in the most objective way and then avoiding all interference. This, our subjective vocabulary. But this would be hard because humans love to have ideas and be abstract along their lives.

Our brains are structured to recognize patterns so I would say our ability to reason is innate. — Athena

But these patterns have to be taught previously in someone's brain. So the ability to reason is soft innate.
John Locke put a good example here. One of the basics of knowledge about Aristotle: one object cannot be a different object at the same time. Perfect we all understand it. But... What about all of those people who will never think about this principle? I mean, imagine a kid born and raised in an island without developed science/education and then he would never heard of this principle and other criteria that give us the ability to reason.
I guess his ability to reason would be more precarious than ours that understand this criteria.

So, it will depend in someone's background to develop a good ability to reason and improve the knowledge. It isn't that innate at all. I think sometimes we born as a tabula rasa.

If not, could our search for what we think of as the "soul" be somehow related to a connection between dimensions. — Steve Leard

Interesting hypothesis. But I would like say "Supreme" figure (or God to the religious ones) instead of soul because this soul has to exist necessarily in all the connected worlds in our human bodies. Then, I guess we have to find out who or which is the ruler or host in this context.

Cogito ergo sum... If I am aware (or think as you say) that I am in a phone/computer screen, then I am literally doing it. This mechanism helps us (more or less) to understand what we are doing right now.
Also, when you say

. It is possible that you are dreaming the very same experiences that you are now having. — Aoife Jones

Not necessarily. I think this is why with our vocabulary we identify as "dreams" because somehow apart us from reality.
If randomly I dream something that I will experience in the next 4 days I would call it dejavou. Then, reality tend to be previously of the dreams we have

Even if by considering Keats, we can receive or even associate feelings of joy (in this case) with Truth, how does our feelings of truth manifest? Language only? Is our truth ours and ours only? What is Truth? — 3017amen

Interesting quotes about Keats. Something complex as truth is just another example which fits in this debate. It is an abstract concept that somehow could be "ineffable". Feelings of truth will manifest in reality depending on the human behavior we are speaking about.
Then, literally only exists our truth and the way we express. Some will accept it others will not. But I think here is not important about other but you. The human himself creating a world with the "reality" and truth he is experiencing.
Also, I don't know if we are able to express truth just with language. I guess here is important the art of evidence and theorizing. For example: I can tell to you is impossible go to the Sun because their high temperature would kill us. Here you can say it is just words despite it is true we cannot travel to the Sun. Then, I decide create a robot which can at least take photo near of the Sun orbit. Later on, I show you the evidence why the Sun could kill us.
It is true that here I use a lot of evidences but it started with just words. What if language is the root of everything we ever discovered?

2. The experience of going to a museum with a friend and see the same paint. For example, Saturn eating his own sons by Goya (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturno_devorando_a_su_hijo)

As you explained previously, language is very important for not only communicate with others but for understanding all the stimulus perceive for us.
When we are experiencing some ineffable feelings as a paint it is important our background in terms of culture vocabulary. Probably for someone, when they see Saturn eating his own sons would think is scary or even horrendous so the vocabulary and then language could be "basic". But if we are someone who loves art and general culture we would give it another perception explained it with different words.
I do not want say here one is better than other. I want to explain that the own criteria in culture will affect the language and its vocabulary.
Then, and it is just my guess, only those who wants to improve their knowledge could have in the long run more chances to avoid "ineffable" but beautiful things as paint, art, music, sculptures, etc... Isn't it the beauty of language?

Freedom is the answer - not oppression. — counterpunch

Sure freedom is the answer but with some limits too.

Then I'm not sure you've thought through the implications of your suggestion that: — counterpunch

It is not the same when someone is already pregnant than other does not. We are speaking here about preventing it not sacrifice all of those who are already pregnant.

If it's a utopia, why is it full of irresponsible people having kids? — counterpunch

It is an utopia because despite of irresponsible of some parents they will end up having kids. It is like a natural decision. We don't have and not improve the scenario where the people should consider more about having kids because it isn't a simple issue. That's why is an utopia. I trying to put arguments in something that won't work at all.

With regard to reproduction, I would simply give women control over their own bodies, with education, contraception and medical care - and if people were still incapable of raising their children properly, then the state should step in and remove the children from danger. But preventing "irresponsible" people from breeding is a non-starter. It's eugenics. It's morally abhorrent, totalitarian and wide open to abuse. — counterpunch

I am agree with you in this point. I also said it previously. I think the key is all about a good sex education system. This would prevent not only unnecessary borns but sexual illnesses.
What I want to say, despite it could sound quite totalitarian, is that some parents do not deserve have kids because these will have a bad life. If someone has already a dangerous background or life all this stimulus will affect their kids too. This is the reality.
Imagine a child born in a broken family with a lot of violence, drugs, bankruptcy, etc... Around him all the days. These stimulus will only make him a delinquent or probably a killer because their parents are not responsible enough to make the child a normal person because the life of the parents are not even normal.
Also you can say here that this literally could happens in rich or wealthy families too. Sure yes, but the ratio is lower we have to be honest.

If evidence arises linking him to the crimes he committed should he be prosecuted. — Steve Leard

Yes. The past still be there. It doesn't matter the new circumstances. With this premise you are literally saving that those lives taken are not worth enough if now the serial killer is a renovated man?
I guess no. He should be prosecuted.

It is a free open answer. Also, it depends of which philosopher are we influenced of. I guess when they explain

right reason

it refers to all of these thoughts that wouldn't make me feel like I am

mistaken

. I mean, the purest dorm of reason.
For example, Descartes said that right reason is equivalent to reality and then he estated that reality is something that despite your are dreaming you are not wrong (Descartes put as example in this context, geometry).
In the other hand, John Locke, as empiricist, thought the right reason comes from primary attributes then we are taught what is a right reason.

So, in this point, it is so open define what we should consider as a right reason and everyone can even make their own answer.

The story has a lot of symbolism about Japan in the 60's (if I remember it properly) but the most interesting fact is a group of friends who appear in the book and have a deeply conversation about anti-natalism in Japan. I remember even a quote when a friend of Naboru Kuroda (main character) told to him: having children in nowadays is something we cannot allow. This is why this debate remembered me about Mishima book.

I am going to recommend to you, if you don't mind, a book which is about this topic and the story is pure brilliant. The book is called The Sailor Who Fell From Grace with the Sea by Yukio Mishima.

[img]http://

I already gave my answer as to the difference between beginning a life, and continuing a life that is already here and how ANs would not use the very things they are against (not forcing a situation onto someone, not getting consent, not harming) to prevent current suffering. The nonexistence of an actual person prior to birth makes all the difference here.

Hello! Yes I understand your point now. It is interesting this point because somehow remembers me an utopianism because it is impossible here preventing now having kids in the long run (we have some countries that literally promote this actions due to religious beliefs...) I accept the fact that not accepting all births is quite totalitarian and impossitive.
Also the fact of non-existence person before birth. it is similar to random probabilities. We only can argue here that probably only win those who will never experience in their consciousness that they ever existed/born.

I guess it is not about killing humans who already born but preventing the future of some parents (not all true) of having kids if they have lack of responsibility

How would you deal with unsanctioned pregnancy? Would women become criminally liable for the natural functioning of their bodies? Would you be happy ordering terminations of unapproved pregnancies by court order?

Oh no. I do not want a holocaust of pregnant women. Neither I want laws which order to courts punish all them who despite they are irresponsible they have kids. It is an Utopia. We can't avoid biology and the instinct of having kids from women. Nevertheless, I guess it is at least so critically flawed. We cannot sit here and then spreading kids out of nowhere for no reason. I think it doesn't depend on laws but in sexual education. What do you think? Probably with a proper sexual education people would be more matured at the time of thinking about having kids.

I guess people who are irresponsible with their own lives shouldn't have the right of breed not only Kids but animals. Having kid is a serious issue that not all the people are ready or capable to do it so.
Imagine someone who in their regular days has a lot of problems which make them not living properly: Bankruptcy, drug addiction, violence, etc... And then they want have kids? Hmm... I still think it is not the best option in context like this

I guess sustenance. Absolute antinatalist is quite impossible because there will be always Kids (even more in so religious countries) but I would consider give a chance ti selective antinatalism as you explained previously.

we need at least two people for morality to make sense.

Interesting! Because you defend morality is an act which necessarily needs a reciprocity. I never thought it that way because I always feel that morality is something that abstract which is inside the inner thoughts of each person. There are even people who don't even believe in morality at all so probably those don't want to share it with others.
Also agree with you in this point:

To my knowledge, no moral theory has a good enough explanation why suicide is immoral despite insisting to no end that it is.

What kind of moral/immoral actions can a person do when alone, isolated from others?

As you clearly explained previously this a deep topic to debate about. I guess (mathematically) it is impossible to make immoral actions when you are isolate since the moment you have zero relations with others. So, if I am alone and do not have connection with others, then I don't even have the opportunity to make immoral decisions towards others. I think the core component here is the inner thoughts of the isolated person. How would affect him the act of isolating himself from others? it reminds me more or less of Stanley Kubrick's film The Shinning where the main character went in craziness after a period of time (well this symbolic film it is a good debate itself).

the rising suicide rates.

This is one of the modern problems in Japan. They even created recently a new ministry to prevent suicides due to loneliness. It is even a paradox because Japan is a overcrowded country with 126,5 millions of people but somehow it looks like they do not promote social interaction and then tend to live alone.

my time spent alone is only beneficial to me (potentially) and to no one else

Then, I have to say you are in the right path. Expending time in just our beneficial purposes is one of the best things we can do. Time is something immaterial that can provides us some good or bad experiences. When you are using it for your own benefits you are not wasting it because in the long run will be so worthy for you. But imagine for a minute wasting your time helping others and then they do not valour it. I guess this is a waste of time to be honest...
I remember back in my days of university. My teacher of taxes told us having a boyfriend/girlfriend is not wasting time despite you can end up breaking up because you lived beautiful experiences too.
I was like meh if you end up breaking up with someone I guess you lost time in something despite you probably win a lot of experience.

The time you are spending off by yourself you could be contributing to community, either in terms of actual work and interaction, or even via solidarity.

This point is very important because it reflects what I wanted to argued previously. Sometimes spending time off by ourselves can also develop good or efficiency to others or the community itself. Probably because for some people this is the right path to concentrate and then developing their thoughts.
It reminds me about John Locke. He lived in a mansion in UK completely alone where he wrote An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. He gave to humanity a lot of wisdom despite he lived alone by self decision...

Who am I that I need to set myself apart from all others just to spend time with my self-absorption?

Probably some who gives up in social interactions and then wants to isolate. I guess the point is simple but Bakunin thought that this act is somehow selfish for all of those who don't try to live in communities
I guess we all have at least the right of decided if we want to self-imposed us the isolation right? Then we can argue if it is good or bad for whatever reasons

Bakunin never really gave a reason for why isolation is selfish

He literally did in the rest of his works or books. Bakunin in his first political days was socialist so probably he criticised loneliness as an act of selfishness because it reminds him about bourgeois or capitalism. the fact of not sharing your interests with others is a selfish act for Bakunin thought

So is he not selfish at this point?

I guess no. This is why I was trying to argue against Bakunin criteria. I think the simple act of living alone because some wants to it is not connected with political or economical beliefs. So this is why I say Bakunin was wrong when he estated a loneliness person is forced to be more sad than others when it is not necessarily to.

Some ppl only learned who Picasso was when they read a news article that told of one of his paintings selling for a record umpteen-million dollars. Culture becomes important when it generates money. I doubt they ever learned who Diogenes was. — Todd Martin

It generates money and then marketing. Picasso is more famous than Diogenes because there are a lot of commercial interests of rich people flowing around.
This exactly happens when we are speaking about other marketing culture stuff: Mona Lisa. We all know is a Da Vinci paint but it is not his best work... But somehow it provides a lot of marketing and money. It is easy to see around internet the image and "memes" about it.
I also bet, as you said, those don't even know who is Francisco de Goya and the "black paintings" which are one of the most important works in art history.

So yes... Sadly in nowadays an art work depends of how the dictatorship of social media give them the accurate reflection or marketing.

provide an answer to why isolation? Could it be a rejection of something? — Caldwell

It could be a rejection of everything around us. One person can decide to isolate himself because literally want to live alone with his ownthoughts. Simple.
For example. Imagine a researcher. He isolates himself in a library for one year without social interaction due to their investigation and studies.
Also another example. Imagine a person who has been retired and then buys a house in the middle of nowhere and wants to live alone with their own circumstances.

The fact here is, against Bakunin was saying, I tried to argument that despite there are a lot of causes which drive a person isolate himself, does not necessarily mean selfish or even "sadness" which is what Bakunin was questioning about.
I isolate myself because I want to. I don't even have to express a clear cause to do it.

The hypocrisy of the left making itself present!

I think Bakunin was somehow misunderstood back in the day. Probably he started being communist or socialist but he ended up not believing in anything at all. I guess this is why his friendship with Marx ended. It is interesting despite his studies about working class or other leftist stuff he established the real enemy is the politics with the State. Thus, developing anarchism.
He also defended the idea of European United States without politics. What a pradox! Today exists Euopean Union but Russia is not part of it, hmm...

We are the only conscious living in universe because we do not reach the accurate technology to demonstrate the contrary yet. I think saying humanity is the only evidence life in Universe is somehow flat and it should be better considering it more general/open to debate deeply or at least as a theory like Big Bang and the born of Universe.
This reminds me about Drake's equation written back in 1961 theorising which are the possibilities of other lives in the Universe apart from ours.

The Drake equation is:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone);
and

R∗ = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

It is interesting this theory which makes us questioning if it is worthy or not discover if we are alone or not in this vast universe.

you can not grow and evolve into God’s image — SteveMinjares

What if I don’t want to. It is not a human task evolve to God’s image

I want to be free but with more limits in we know in the West as “modern society” I would sound totalitarian but in important things as voting or internet access should not be accessible for everyone.
When these are free and easy to join they end up being flawed. Here in Spain you can vote with just 18 years old. I think it is not useful because a teenager doesn’t know how a State or government works so they will vote whatever they were taught to previously. I consider raise the age at 25 at least.
Internet era is the same and many powerful entities use it just to brainwash people with fake news. Social media as Twitter or Facebook have not a democratic criteria because do not put basic rules of “truths” neither transparency. It is free access so lit any kind of person can join and write whatever they want. It is dangerous and drives to misunderstandings.
I would say these are good inventions but somehow they need to be more restricted.

He made us in his image so by that logic we are inherently good by his grace. — SteveMinjares

Which image? We never seen that. So this is contradictory again when you wrote previously:

It is only define or real if you can observe it. — SteveMinjares

We cannot define God’s grace and image if we never observed it.

Why would someone isolate himself from the rest? — Caldwell

Probably because the subject does not believe in social interactions. I guess he thinks he will end up being hurt or disappointed. So he pretends isolate himself just to live with their own circumstances not depending from the rest. Imagine living alone in an island full of resources. Why not? This action is not necessarily selfish or bad if it is a personal decision.
This somehow breaks the theory of Karl Marx of human is a social animal and is forced to live in communities. So here opens a tangent in the debate about if we are free of living in our own or we are forced to live with others because this is how ever works.

Another (6):

1. If an object is sensible, it is divisible
2. My mind is not divisible
3. Therefore, my mind is not a sensible object — Bartricks

I would change “divisible” for tangible. All sensible objects are tangibles because we can use it or modified for our own desire respecting the laws of physics. Our mind is not tangible because is full of abstract criteria but it gives us the most powerful thing: awareness.
Can be awareness divisible as you stated? To be honest yes. Because we apply here cogito ergo sum rule. Since we are literally aware of our own mind we exist but imagine those who never had this thought. I guess we can apply here the divisible/tangible criteria because it will reflect us how aware we are about our mind.

Another (8):

1. No existing object has infinite parts
2. if any sensible object exists, it will have infinite parts (for it will be infinitely divisible)
3. Therefore, no sensible object exists
4. My mind exists
5. Therefore, my mind is not a sensible object — Bartricks

I don’t understand so much this one. Infinite is so relative in our vocabulary. I guess any objects do not have infinite parts because literally we don’t know what extent or integrated is infinite in our reality. Sometimes we use infinite just as trying to describe something we don’t know yet.
Therefore, if my mind has limits admitting there are “infinite” variables then my mind is so sensible to their changes.

Another (9):

1. My reason represents it to be possible for my mind to exist apart from any sensible thing
2. If my mind was a sensible thing, then it would not be possible for it to exist apart from any sensible thing
3. Therefore, my reason is representing my mind not to be a sensible object — Bartricks

I guess you mixed reason and mind. Reason provides us enter to the sensible/tangible world. When work the reason we can make the ideas of mind true. For example, building a pyramid was firstly an idea in someone’s mind. Later on, the architect put the reason to work and then build it. So this is literally sensible criteria.

The same goes with morality and reality. It is only define or real if you can observe it. — SteveMinjares

But then you also say:

And those who try to justify God’s existence based on the pain and suffering of our current reality is a form of a loaded question. Through my perspective, answering such a question if an answer exists is just catering to the individual's ego desiring to be superior in a reality that cannot be control by human beings. — SteveMinjares

This is the paradox about the debate. How can you say morality, reality, and physics only exists if we can observe it but then you believe in God so blindness? It is quite contradictory. You would believe or not of how Cosmos works with their laws from a empirical perspective saying it is only define or real if you can observe it.
How can we observe God? Why do you believe in it if you are not observing it?

I think happiness can exist without love. Considering this one so “subjective” and codependent because in love is needed to be loved to. But happiness can involves us in a lot of circumstances that makes us happy. For example, writing a novel and then you win a prize. This would make you happy for your own effort and knowledge but love is not here anyway...
Also while happiness is forced to drive us in good situations, love could be dangerous. Imagine being love with someone or something that ends up disappointing you for whatever reason.
So yes I guess they are different and can exist independently.

How do you feel about being a philosopher, perhaps even a futility affirming pessimist that there is a gratuitous and incomprehensible amount of suffering in the world that leads to a miserable state of affairs for others, that one must address as a good person or at least a person concerned with the good?

Is this something philosophy is most knowledgeable about or seemingly speaks about it as if it were a trite truth about living? — Shawn

I feel the same thought of always. Living is painful. Simple. We can not truly know how to be happy or at least finding a scenario with regular life as you said with the last pain possible. Remember that Aristotle in his writings about Ethics he proposed that the main goal of humanity is find happiness.
When you reach a society with happiness supposedly everything will work properly. But this is the hardest equation.
How can we be happy? It is difficult and somehow impossible because depends a lot of own personal beliefs and ideas. Also it is important point out that we live in a toxic generation where weirdly famous or influencers spread all over the network fake happiness. This is a big problem to the youngest. Because when a teenager see them and then see himself he gets frustrated to easy.
I think philosophy is clear here. We have to promote the act of knowledge and then each step will drive us to our goal. Thus, the happiness.
Nevertheless, sadly, this is not a task the governments are considering for. They are just there like in a jungle getting profits and spread depression to the youngest people. When I see politicians criticising each other with bad words it makes me sad because they show that they do not care at all about mutual consent or at least equal stability.

Perhaps Bakunin didn't appreciate, for whatever (ideological?) reasons, how much his bouts of "loneliness" had invigorized his promethean rages against the machine ... — 180 Proof

True. This point is interesting. Because back in time in his loneliness time he was somehow tired or frustrated of what is going around him. As you said, perhaps he was influenced so much by Karl Max because they were even friends. So probably he was so much focused in establishing communities of working class instead of being selfish and being alone in home

So, is it isolation that's being explained here? If so, I can see his point that voluntary isolation is selfish. — Caldwell

I think he was referring to isolation as an act of not sharing with others. As you said, I can hang out with friends o people but I can feel lonely. But at least I try go there and meeting people, in this context the problem is not me but the others who don’t respect me or don’t want to be me with me.
Bakunin (I guess) thought that those people who don’t want to be with anybody and also not interact at all so not making communities is somehow selfish. But I think we have to consider it in their political beliefs in terms that probably he compares a loneliness man with a capitalist/powerful man of the state, etc... that only wants keep his richness

Studies have repeatedly shown that the loneliness has little to do intro- or extroversion

True but somehow introverted people tend to go more loneliness than extroverted ones because it isnjust their nature. We can see it in the pandemic covid era. There were people who is hard for them stay a lot inside their homes while other do not care at all or are even more comfortable with themselves.
Also, yes, as you remarked we all ned have issues about external preoccupation. I guess this is another argument why Bakunin defended the selfishness practicing loneliness because somehow if we self-imposed us stay away of people we do not make other have expectations or whatever about us

Yes I already know that story. It is emotional and impacting. I remember an important scene where Christopher burned a few dollars as a metaphor of leaving the system. the decades he was living alone was difficult yes, but not impossible. I guess it is an interesting book where it shows the debate about if we are truly a social animal
Furthermore this story I also recommend to you another similar story called the history of Hayy Ibn Yaqzan here is the link of the free book: file:///C:/Users/javix/Desktop/Hayy%20empiricism.pdf/ http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/books/hayy.pdf where a little kid is raised in a savage island with a lot of antelopes ans then at the age of 49 years old he tells their experience when he meets civilisation for the first time.