Good and evil.

Well, it seems like you're the one who's "split" here, not me:rolleyes:
How?:eek:

Ganymed;83168Reducing my post to a "state of pleasure" is absurd.

Actually, you did it yourself; at least, that's how I understood your post. I just emphasized this reduction.

Good is not pleasure; it is GOOD, if you even understand the meaning of this word.

I don't. Well, I do, but only vaguely... And I don't believe that anyone understands it perfectly. But I'm glad that you also distinguish between good and pleasure:)

Every being strives for good, and you too, Silvanis, I'm sure of it.

That's absolutely true:)

"bashing the brains" of those around you so that their noise doesn't interfere with your work is good (for you, but not for them)

And for them too! That's the point... Here you confirm that you are considering the concept of good from the point of view of pleasure. Isn't it good to guide them on the right path? By the way, I recommend reading Plato's dialogues on the topic of good and egoism; "Gorgias" is especially good on this topic.

"soothing the soul" in a conversation with someone is good (for you, but not for the opponent)

Not necessarily. I just don't quite understand what you mean - if you just express what's on your mind, it's good for both of you; if you say nasty things because you're offended, it's bad for both of you, especially for the one who said them.

So, if I reason from your point of view, you live a normal life; if from the point of view of those for whom your actions are not good, then you are an egoist. And where is the good or evil here? In what and for whom?

So, according to you, a person cannot consider himself an egoist and realize that he did something wrong?:eek: I don't believe it. I often realize that I made a mistake, that I was to blame, etc.; and I'm sure that every other person does too! You need to have an unshakable self-satisfaction to always consider yourself right - such a person will, by the way, be evil.

Now, let's imagine a situation: one person kills another person, i.e., deprives him of the good of life. Is this good in itself for the one who kills? No (since it is not naturally a necessity), and therefore contradicts nature (is unnatural). But if a person kills in a war, defending his homeland, is this good? Yes, because he preserves the good of independence for himself (first of all) and for his country (nation).

Killing a person can NEVER be considered good. The fact that a person killed while defending someone does not negate the fact that he killed, and does not relieve the person of moral responsibility. It is normal that a person chose to kill rather than die, but from a moral point of view, this choice is wrong. That's why people can't always follow moral norms.

Now the question: is money good?

Sorry, that's a stupid question. Even stupider than, say, "is a hammer good?"

In itself, no - it's just paper.

Well, not exactly. It's not that easy to make such paper:D

But you can buy a lot with money - a car, an apartment, etc. Is this good?

Yes and no. It's good if a person doesn't become so attached to it that it will be difficult for him to live without it, and it's bad if he turns out to be bound by this luxury.

Let's imagine a situation: a person robs a bank, killing an armored car guard in the process. He does this in order to acquire money, which can be used to acquire a good that he does not have, but which he needs, possibly. Is this good for the person in a natural sense? No, it's not good, although he has become the owner of a lot of money and can formally acquire the necessary good, but... he committed theft and murder... he needs to hide from the law and live constantly in fear of being caught.

But if he could get away with it (say, he had an ironclad alibi), would that be a natural good, right? Ganymed, such an act is not good regardless of the outcome for the person. By the way, you're again hinting at equating good with pleasure... Please separate them more clearly: all the examples of good that you gave, I call pleasure. Good for me is an absolutely different concept.

That's why a predator kills its prey in order to feed itself, which is good for it.

Let's just agree: let's not discuss animals. I think that this topic does not concern them - even if killing is evil, an animal cannot be held morally responsible for it, and therefore it is not worth discussing these examples about predators.

If you disagree with everything I wrote, then refute it in essence, and not by profaning the concepts themselves:)

Well, how about it? Did it work?:)
I recommend reading (or rereading) Plato about Socrates.