Iambiguous states that everything is a conflicting good …
Everyone going to hell forever, and nobody ever going to heaven is not a conflicting good.
Conflict isn’t evil though.
Evil is what you’re working against.
Well, you’re just a Kid [whatever that means] so I wouldn’t expect you to grasp the distinction that I am making here.
But, to set the record straight, not everything is a conflicting good.
In fact, some things, like heaven and hell, probably don’t even exist at all.
Unless, of course, you can, in fact, demonstrate that they do.
Indeed, either with or without God.
Not all work against evil, and not all that we work against is evil.
You might want to define what you mean by evil, Ecmandu.
As Dan said, conflict isn’t evil - at least it is not necessarily evil.
For the most part, it is most natural, psychologically speaking, for all humans.
When it comes to true evil, for instance, against those who deliberately cause harm and wish to destroy humans/humanity, there is no conflict within working against that, insofar as we know what must be done. We see the good and the greater good…although there may be some inner conflict if we have to harm some in order to protect the innocent.
Sometimes conflict occurs when we can’t decide which is the greater good for us (or for another) and we have only one choice to make.
Sometimes conflict occurs when we’re fighting against ourselves because we know what the right thing to do is but we wish to remain lazy, to not evolve or transform ourselves.
Or just laziness period! ← No conflict there! Yet it can breed certain evils… like disinterest or apathy towards others in need.
Ecmandu, everyone going to hell forever is a conflicting “good” between man and God. ← And it doesn’t negate anything Biggy says insofar as he’s not saying that everyone goes to hell forever.
It would mean God goes to hell forever as well…
Everyone means just that, everyone.
So iamb asserts for every possible argument that there is a conflicting good.
Obviously, he is wrong.
I think Biggy might argue that for every possible conviction one might hold, there is someone out there with the opposite conviction who will fight the first person, sometimes to the death, to uphold that conviction on moral grounds.
I don’t know where this idea that everyone, even God, goes to hell forever comes from.
I have the conviction that: “in order for me to walk down a sidewalk, I must actually walk down a sidewalk”
I agree with Iambiguous that people will fight to the death to say “I can walk down a sidewalk without ever having in any way walked down a sidewalk”
These people are evil. Iambiguous states they are equally good.
Most conflict takes place due to limited sight.
If a blind man says that there is no light, is he equally right?
If a ignorant man says that there is no “should”, is he equally good?
So that’s the tell-tale sign that someone’s evil? If they say: I can walk down the sidewalk without walking down the sidewalk?
Biggy would probably say they are equal in some respect–I don’t know about “good”.
I don’t think it’s a matter of ignorance, I think a person like iamb is evil… “No matter what happens to you, it’s GOOD!!!” End of story. Evil incarnate.
He’s afraid of the real world, and in being terrified of it, he’s trying to seem like everyone’s friend “it’s all good man!”
He’s not saying that skullfucking a living person is evil… He’s saying it’s good for both parties involved!
I actually loathe iambiguous
Obviously.
Do I really need to quote a person who writes in every thread :
"Everything is a conflicting moral and political good "
"Tell me one morality or politic that doesn’t have a conflicting good "
Are we really having this discussion Gib ?!?!?!
Just for the record, that is not what I am saying at all.
Well, unless, of course, I’m wrong. 
Let’s try this:
Note a particular context in which some argue that a behavior is good, while others argue that, on the contrary, the behavior is bad.
For example, some argue that voting for Donald Trump is an example of a good behavior. Others that voting for Hillary Clinton is an example of a good behavior.
Conflicting goods.
On the other hand, very, very, very few will argue that there was not a presidential election in America in which Trump defeated Clinton in the Electoral College vote.
On the other other hand…
It is an objective fact that the Electoral College exists in American politics.
But some see this as a good thing, and others as a bad thing.
How then as political philosophers can we determine which one it is “in reality”?
What say you, Ec?
James,
Let’s bring this, oh, I don’t know, down to earth?
Let’s explore this assertion in a context in which different folks have different assessments regarding what there is to see, and, then, once seen, how all rational men and women are obligated to see it.
Come on, my friend, let’s figure out once and for all why anyone who does not embrace RM/AO and the Real God with respect to “conflicting goods” is “by definition” ignorant.
You choose the context. You choose the behaviors in conflict.
And then perhaps we can persuade Maia to weigh in from the perspective of an actual blind person.
Drinking alcohol increases the probability of cancer (oral/esophagus/ breast). If I am rational and I know the statistics, am I obligated to reduce my consumption of alcohol? Why can’t a rational person explicitly choose to drink?
Why can’t a rational person choose to be self-destructive or immoral?
Oh the irony!!! My point of course being the opposite.
Or pretty damn close to it.
In order to obviate the complexities and the ambiguities that are embedded historically, culturally and experientially out in the “real world” [teeming with contingency, chance and change], the objectivists are obliged to create an idealistic narrative “in their head”.
That way “the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty” is gone. Right and wrong, good and evil now have a font. Sometimes it’s God, sometimes Reason, sometimes Nature.
And, sure, sometimes these truly bizarre combinations!!!
But the point is always to secure for themselves the comfort and the consolation that is found when “I” can be grounded in one or another rendition of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
No, I am only noting [suggesting] this:
We can live in a world where the unborn is skullfucked literally in being aborted, or we can live in a world where pregnant women are skullfucked politically in being forced to give birth.
Conflicting goods.
So, where is the philosophical argument that makes this go away? And where is the philosophical argument that obviates the point I raise regarding the narcissist/sociopath in a Godless universe?
Coming from a Kid though, it’s just not the same. Instead, I prefer it when folks like James and Turd and Uccisore and Fixed Cross loath me.
If only from a distance. I can never seem to persuade them to actually explore the points that I raise here in a civil and intelligent exchange.
Like, for example, this one: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190026&start=175
I can only speculate that their distaste for me is rooted more in their concern that the points I make may well be applicable to them too.
Not exactly sure what you are suggesting here. Is it that, with respect to drinking alcohol or self-destructive behavior, there might actually be a frame of mind that makes a clear distinction – a necessary distinction – between rational and irrational, moral and immoral behavior?
Any number of particular folks in any number of particular circumstantial contexts for any number of particular reasons might choose to do either one. Or both.
And what can you or I possibly know about the manner in which they – as individuals – connect the dots between “in my head” and “out in the world”?
We are not in their head and we may know little or nothing about the life that they live.
How then would the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein and conflicting goods not be crucial factors in discussing this with them?