Again, this is literally one dimensional thinking.
Instead of imagining bad <-> good as… a number line, -10 to 10, or whatever…
Imagine bad as x, good as y, and an x y graph.
Some actions can cause some bad, much good.
Some actions can cause much bad, little good.
No bad, much good, or no good, much bad.
In the real world, which is quite complex, there are very rarely actions or situations that are purely good, or purely bad. More often, it is a mixture of both, and everyone has their own moral scales for judging the magnitude of ‘bad’ and ‘good’… many likely have even more than just two dimensions.
This is part of why, in English, we have the phrase ‘moral calculus’. The phrase itself implies that trying to ‘compute’ morality is not straightforward, it is complex, with different approaches to reaching a ‘solution’.
That is literally the definition
Only if you think in one dimension, absolutes.
No, it is simple math.
If something has more bad things, it is worse than something that does not.
If something has less bad things, it is better than something that does not.
Is English not your first language? Because it isn’t mine either.
Again, this is literally one dimensional thinking.
Instead of imagining bad <-> good as… a number line, -10 to 10, or whatever…
Imagine bad as x, good as y, and an x y graph.
Some actions can cause some bad, much good.
Some actions can cause much bad, little good.
No bad, much good, or no good, much bad.
In the real world, which is quite complex, there are very rarely actions or situations that are purely good, or purely bad. More often, it is a mixture of both, and everyone has their own moral scales for judging the magnitude of ‘bad’ and ‘good’… many likely have even more than just two dimensions.
This is part of why, in English, we have the phrase ‘moral calculus’. The phrase itself implies that trying to ‘compute’ morality is not straightforward, it is complex, with different approaches to reaching a ‘solution’.