> Is 1 a positive

Sure, but existence can also be a -1, it’s not a simple binary.

> is there more suffering than joy

Sometimes.

I’m not denying that joy can be present in a life, but suffering is always present, and quite frankly it’s all unnecessary.

> makes no sense

It does. Existence is not necessarily a positive.

> existing is suffering

It is. You’re saying it’s not always net suffering, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. I’m pointing out that there will always be suffering in life, by definition. Whether the things one considers positives outweigh that suffering in that person’s opinion is subjective.

Life didn’t always exist, so ethics and morality aren’t fundamental truths of existence, as one cannot apply these to non-life. Mathematical relationships existed whether or not there was anybody to observe them.

> negative to existence

Sure, but that doesn’t make it negative overall. It’s also more like +/- 1 -/+ 1 = 0. Non-existence is neutral.

I’m not saying there’s no positives, I’m just saying there is suffering. This suffering wouldn’t have been there if they hadn’t existed, and they also would have not desired or cared about these positives either.

Sure, ceasing to exist is negative to existence, but that doesn’t make it objectively a negative thing.

Ethics and morality are not “fundamental truths”.

You’re again subjectively placing a positive value on life and existence.

You’re placing a subjective positive value on existence. Even for the species, if it didn’t exist, none of its members would have had to suffer (they by definition suffer). Lower numbers also means less of them are suffering (which by definition is the case), and I think you may hold a different view on this than me, but I subjectively view suffering as bad. It’s not objective that existence is good.

No. I subjectively agree in considering his attacks on civilians wrong, but it’s not objectively wrong, as nothing is. Some civilians were definitely going to get hurt as collateral damage, but clearly Russia is going out of its way to unnecessarily harm them (which is just stupid considering at this point even if they did win it wouldn’t be worth it), which I don’t support.

I am not a Putin supporter. Look what he has done. He has exposed Russia’s military as atrocious, causing our fate to not be a Third World War, but something much more drawn-out and painful, he has ruined his country’s economy, and ruined a lot of people’s lives. That being said, I don’t think launching offensives should be met with such opposition from countries that aren’t even fighting in the war.

No, you’re misunderstanding. A species’ existence in general, or its stability in numbers, is not objectively good either.

Again, it’s only bad if the species’ existence in large numbers is considered good. That’s not objective at all. It is objectively obstructive of said species existing in large numbers, good or bad is a subjective thing building on top of that.

Going extinct is not objectively bad. In general, the ceasing of life, whether from internal or external factors, is not objectively bad. It’s only considered bad if life is considered necessarily a positive, which is not objective. Tigers have to do the work to hunt to get their food, and if they overdo it, it would disrupt part of the food chain temporarily, causing chaos on a small scale.

How can something be objectively ethically good or bad? That entirely depends on what a person considers “desirable”, which is subjective.

How does it prove your point? You do realize parts of our brains are for subjective things, right?

It is an observation. The commenter I replied to originally said that everybody would benefit if Russia lost. I brought up one example of a person who wouldn’t. I know none of us would have much pity for Putin, but how about the Russian families who lost the person they depend on so they could fight for Russia, just to lose? How about the average Russian, who is facing struggles in a crippled economy and a potential split of Russia when they lose, meaning more uncertainty?

It is in fact true that there is no objective “right” or “wrong” in ethics. It’s not academic, it really is common sense. It’s also not “disgusting”, it’s just stepping back and staying aware of the facts. Was this the wrong place and the wrong time? Obviously, seeing as the hive-mind downvotes me without thinking about what I say.

> flawed premises

What flawed premises? Do you mind explaining how it’s flawed to note that we cannot pass our personal opinion of something as a fact when it is not a fact?

Is it not flawed to think everyone’s lives will benefit from a certain outcome?

> misdirection

I’m not misdirecting anybody.

If you think I’m supporting Russia, let me say one more time that I do not support Russia.

Math is objective. One cannot simply say “2 + 2 is 85 because I said so”. 2 + 2 is in fact not 85.

Morality and ethics are not objective. There’s no such thing as “fundamental truths of the universe”. In some cases, an action is considered bad, while in others, it is considered good. Meanwhile, 2 + 2 is always equal to 4.

Life did not always exist and will not always exist. One person having a certain idea of ethics does not make it objective. Further, any decision made by humans or other complex animals is entirely based on the electrical signals being transmitted among their neurons. You can’t judge these actions.

About ethical objectivism, we invented these concepts, and all of it is opinion-based, so no, it is not objective.

> objectively bad

You’re subjectively saying that a reduction in members of the species is bad. That’s not objective.

You do realize that all species, whether humans, chimpanzees, tigers, or any other animal, are all going to go extinct at some point no matter what, right?

Objective ethics don’t exist.

If I’m a loser, what does that make you? Someone just going with the masses, not thinking a single bit about it?

Let me clarify one more time: I am neither a contrarian, nor someone supporting Russia, so I’m not trolling or doing anything like that, just someone stepping back and then taking a look from a better angle.

I’ve read about it and can clearly see it is nonsensical. “Morality” and “ethics” are concepts we invented.

> I beg to differ by a lot

With what logical basis?

> why would I judge the actions of a tiger

They are a species of animals, just like humans. Or do you need another ape species to judge? How about chimpanzees and bonobos, the two species most similar to humans?

> hurts their species’ viability

That doesn’t make it “objectively bad”.

We agree it to be subjectively considered true, not objectively.

> Murder is wrong

Not objectively. You say it is a statement of fact and not feeling, yet it is a statement of feeling. Everyone who was born is going to die anyways, so by your reasoning I’m assuming you also consider reproduction wrong? I mean in that case I would agree but for different reasons, but that is irrelevant.

> what neutrality

None of these countries are technically at war with Russia.

> the person you initially replied to did not say it was objectively wrong

Indeed, they did not directly state it, but it was heavily implied.

Ah, but I was talking in terms of ethics. Ethical good and bad are entirely subjective.

If the goal is to maintain stable health, drinking water does help, but it’s not objectively good. A goal of maintaining stable health is also not objectively good to have.

I was saying one can’t judge something as ethically “objectively right” or “objectively wrong”.

Obviously someone saying 2 + 2 = 85 is objectively wrong.

Ah, but there is no such thing as “moral law”.

If you really buy into this concept, though, do you judge the actions of tigers?

Because you disagree with me?

“Right” and “wrong” are inherently subjective judgements, no matter how common one particular stance on an action or decision may be.

I mean I think you can see how many downvotes I’ve gotten due to outrage over that one comment where I simply made an observation.