re: #797 Obdicut

Because we judge it so post-facto. There isn’t any possible other judgement. So it’s a meaningless one.

Non sequitur. Simply defining this good out of existence by calling it meaningless doesn’t make it not good. It’s good because we judge it to be good. We judge it to be good, hence it’s not meaninglessly good.

I really find it a pretty trivial matter, but the point I’m trying to make is it’s just the anthropic principle. It’s like saying that my blood is suffused with sufficient oxygen right now is good. It’s an entirely different category of ‘good’ than me actually doing something useful with that, to the extent that I wouldn’t call it good, just necessary.

We judge many pre-existing things as good that are not necessary for our existence (e.g. we would exist without edible mushrooms; edible mushrooms pre-date us; edible mushrooms are good and not due to our efforts). We judge a lot of pre-existing things as bad, some of them necessary for our individual or group existence, some neutral in that regard (e.g. neither you nor I would exist if some historical tragedies would not have happened due to butterfly effect, but we don’t refrain from negative judgment just because we’re here because of them and we wouldn’t be here without them; various parasites and pathogens that existed aside from us got attached to us; etc.).