|
> People across the planet, history and culture all identified a highest good, which clearly isn't one's self-preservation. For one because then there are multiple highest goods which are all in competition with each other You correctly recognize that "highest good" is not a unified thing, and that every person has their own opinion on what "highest good" is. Why, then, do you still believe in an objective "highest good"? There is no "good", there is only "good for whom". Whom does your "highest good" serve? Anyone that claims to know what "the one true highest good" is is a scam artist trying to profit off others' stupidity. > I don't think it is decided by anyone the same way 2+2=4 isn't decided. It is recognized. No, "good" is an evaluation, and exist only inside human minds. Sometimes, several people agree on what "good" is and join in collaboration. That doesn't mean there is such a thing as an "universal good", "good for everyone", unless you throw out any self-interest as "bad", as our personal interests are often in conflict with others'. > But if you don't trust other humans to decide or even know what the highest good is, why would you trust yourself. Aren't you just a human as well? Because there is no reason anyone else but me would fundamentally care about my well being. I fundamentally care about my well being, so I am the only one qualified to make such decisions. Not my president, not my priest, not my community - only me. |
I think we fundamentally disagree on that. But it was an interesting conversation.