If you accomplish your goal, it doesn't mean you had a good life.
Well, if there’s no afterlife then who defines good anyway?
Good is what is beneficial towards an entity. What is beneficial is subjective to one's goals.
In essence, the reason why the definitions of good and evil are controversial is because of their subjective nature.
This isn’t beneficial at all dude, you’re contradicting yourself left and right and you’re inability to see that is frustrating. I literally just linked good to goals and you rejected it just to do the same thing less than 3 posts later, give me a break.
Please do not become frustrated, as I believe you are misunderstanding.
Earlier when I said, "if you accomplish your goal it doesn't mean you had a good life," I was giving the context of "a good life" in the emotional sense.
Someone who has done many terrible things can claim I have had a good life in the emotional sense, just as someone may not have enjoyed their life even if they have achieved their goals, such as regret.
The second instance is when you said, "who defines good," and you were referring to divine judgment, which clearly expressed a moral context.
Someone who is obviously considered a moral or righteous person can claim that they are not having a good life, it is that they are not having a good life, even though their actions may be good. Therefore, I gave you the definition of good in the context of morals.
This is really not that complicated, although not many people recognize this distinction.
Good can refer to the emotional or moral context, which are too distinct classes of good.
Clearly these two definitions do not contradict one another given their distinct contexts.
Please understand, I'm doing my best to explain my understanding to you, which has proven quite challenging, yet enjoyable.
The best thing to do if there is an obvious inconsistency of logic within an opponent's argument is not to assume them an idiot, but that either they or you are misusing the vocabulary. I have found this to be true in every dispute I can recollect. In the end, it has always been a misunderstanding of the definition. This is why I strive profusely to correct my understanding of words to their dictionary definitions, which are as defined undisputable, and this has proven beneficial every time.
Having said that, understanding the world on a much deeper level is quite difficult for many people, as we all find our own level of depth. If you feel at any point, you are not learning anything, please do not feel obligated to continue. Instead, feel obligated to tell me, so I don't use my time unproductively.
Maybe a break from this topic would be just what we need? I would prefer it so I can give more time to thought rather than explanation. This would give us time to contemplate all the new things we have explored in the forum. Then we can come back later with new thoughts and ideas. I often do this with my personal journal in philosophy, and it works quite effectively. Next time you feel as though you have made a breakthrough, please do not hesitate to post.