>>1183652

First, provide your definitions of "objective" and "subjective".

Your second and third lines make immediate sense to me.

The latter clause of your first line, and its rhetorical context, are unclear. Expound. Do you mean that in some sense "bad intentions don't exist", or "the individual is never wrong as far as they're concerned at the time" or something along those lines? It's unclear. I would instead suggest "normative", "ethical" for the former clause, but it's your thing and you wrote it the way you wanted to.

As for your fourth line, a religion, ethics etc will try to explain reality in a narrative fashion (you understand this), and will often try to do so in an authoritative fashion, which we presume is meant to either be or affect objectivity. You conflate emotion with subjectivity, but the thrust of exactly how you do this is not perfectly clear, given the brevity of your post. Furthermore it is unclear how you arrive at your conclusion, given the above information.

>>1183745
Good post

>>1183745
"Goodness" is the organisms beneficence to itself and the system it is beholden to. The greater love is always unconditional, not sentimental or possessive. An organism that is purely itself is the good.

But there's a lot that's meant by that. The point is, act one way, and you grow, act another, and you disintegrate, just because any given state of mind KS subjective doesn't mean we cannot correlate it to degrees of health and pathosychology.

Bumperoo

>>1183652
>morals are predicated on emotive statements, ergo bad don't real
>emotions aren't real