Good cannot both be good and not good at the same time and in the same way/manner. It defies logic. So, either you or me or both of us are wrong, but we both can't be right when we state opposites. Thus, you need an objective best to make sense of good or better. There must be a fixed reference point or best continually shifts.
Unless 'good' is simply a concept. We both have concepts of good, they are different, neither however is objectively accurate. This makes sense of good and isn't a logical issue at all.
It STILL CANNOT be both good and not good at the same time and in the same way. It is a contradiction and defies the very thing you use to make sense of anything - the laws of logic. You could not communicate without these laws. You could not make sense of anything without employing these laws, so what you claim above is nonsense. Even as "a simple concept" it cannot be contradictory (exact opposite) and still make sense.
By putting in a moral claim (good) you are implying something that must be true, but how can it if it loses its identity? Therefore, such statements are self-refuting.
Here are 7 things a moral relativist, like you, cannot say and still be reasonable or CONSISTENT:
Rule #1: Relativists Can’t Accuse Others of Wrong-Doing
Rule #2: Relativists Can’t Complain About the Problem of Evil
Rule #3: Relativists Can’t Place Blame or Accept Praise
Rule #4: Relativists Can’t Claim Anything Is Unfair or Unjust
Rule #5: Relativists Can’t Improve Their Morality
Rule#6: Relativists Can’t Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions
Rule #7: Relativists Can’t Promote the Obligation of Tolerance
(see above link for an expansion of these rules)
This video implies the laws of logic are prescriptive rather than descriptive. There is no evidence of this. Again an unintelligent universe consisting of forces that act in a consistent manner would seem to be enough to produce logic. Why must it have been decreed that a cannot be not-a and then it became so, rather than it is true that a cannot be not-a and so we declared it?
How would such a universe produce logic? The laws of logic are either immaterial, unchanging, eternal, and sentient or they are changing, material, finite. Which do you propose? How do you get an ought from an is or what is prescriptive (moral laws) from what is descriptive (the universe)?
[4] With whose reality? Is reality only what you SEE?
No, my eyesight isn't that good. Yet why assume anything we can't observe?
Why do you assume logic, which is immaterial? It cannot be seen, touched, tasted, heard, or smelt, yet without it human communication is impossible. You have to assume it is true to make sense of anything, therefore it is a necessary truth.
[5] So, if your idea of best is different from my idea of best what IS the actual best? Is it yours by default, just because you LIKE it like you like ice-cream? "I like ice-cream" is an expression of preference. You confuse preference with values. Preference is a subjective standard/like or dislike. Good or bad is a question of qualitative values.
You're assuming an 'actual best' why must there be an actual best at all? We can quantify, we can measure and judge and from that we can declare 'this is best' yet what we can actually show is 'this is furtherest' 'this is the heaviest', or 'this is the shortest time' we can then declare that 'better' than shorter, lighter or a longer time. Yet all we have done is give criteria to 'best' can you show that criteria is objectively better or best?
How do you get good and better without a best as the final reference point? How can you know it? Because you FEEL it? What happens if I FEEL the opposite? Then which good is the actual good? A=A. The law of identity comes into effect. A thing is what it is. A thing cannot logically be both what it is and what it is not. A dog is not a cat. A dog is a dog. A tree is a tree. A tree is not a metal car.
Please answer those questions for me instead of skirting the issue.
Yes, we have a standard that we can do this with, in regards to quantitative things.
What is the standard you use to measure qualitative values? You make claims all the time regarding what is "good" or "better." By putting a moral claim onto something you are stating that something is superior to something else. If that is not an absolute claim why SHOULD I trust your claim?
In giving criterion, I can show the impossibility of the contrary. Is that good enough?
Please show me how good can be both good and bad at the same time and in the same manner. Show me how "It is good to torture innocent children for fun" and "It is evil torture innocent children for fun" (or for any reason) are both true?
