(refutation of disagreement with 2. D.)

Refutation of claiming that there is no such thing as what is worthwhile:

• This may be referred to as skeptical nihilism
• Skeptical nihilism is true if is true that there is no such thing as good and bad, but in the way that people choose for themselves, they tend to seek benefits and avoid harms, and it is not different for other persons.
• Those who act exactly as if good and bad are real in their own case, and call what is good and bad in general an illusion may judge things this way so they can freely disregard what is good and bad for others--a dangerous hypocrisy.
• The practical reality of benefits and harms proves that, for practical purposes, good and bad are real. That is, good and bad cause us to choose in certain ways (or at least influence our choices), and true or false things can be said about benefits and harms.
• It has seemed odd to think of good and bad as real in a materialistically conceived universe of space, time, and energy. However, we must admit that each of us has his or her own time of things (what we may call "personal time"). This is undeniable, since even now you are having a personal experience which no one else is having. If we think of good and bad as real in the context of personal times, not only does this seem intelligible, it seems necessary. We cannot account for anyone's time of things without accounting for what they experience as beneficial or harmful.
• If it were true that good and bad are unreal, then the wisest course of action which transcends all illusion would be to choose in ways that disregard good and bad, or to choose at random among things that one could do (i.e., regardless of benefits or harms). Yet that is an unwise strategy that no one could live by precisely because it would forego benefits and invite harms.

RETURN TO DISAGREEMENTS WITH PREMISE 2.

RETURN TO MAIN ARGUMENT

HOME