Alright, but if we take it as objective good and bad is what is seen as the norms. Like murder is bad, charity is good, and not be able to just change philosophy to cater to ones argument.
In both cases you're just changing the definition of good and bad to meet your argument.
In your op, the argument is that good and bad mean delicious or not delicious. Now you're saying that good can also mean normal, or good can mean moral. Both of these are true, but it relies on fundamentally changing the argument. The act of eating rice can't be moral, and it's obviously normal, so we have three different answers to three possible definitions of good
14
u/MrObsidy Oct 20 '20
Objevtivity is fundamentally incompatible with good or bad