It's not good of its own merit though, it's only good compared to something worse. Neither party represents the interests of the average working class individual.

[+] PunnyName@lemmy.world -8 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Literally nothing is "good of its own merit". Because literally nothing is intrinsically "good".

"Good" is a subjective idea, not objectively measurable, so it will always be in reference to another, i.e. relative.

[–] WallEx@feddit.de 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Maybe for you that's the case, I definitely have a definition of morally good and both sides aren't that. Accepting collateral for example. You can't be good in my book if you're doing that, and they both did.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Nerco-ing a bit:

Can you provide me of an example that is objectively good?

Please don't describe it, simply provide an example.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Okay, let's go with the word "beneficial" then.

Edit: I thought about it more after responding and the Democratic party does occasionally implement policies that are beneficial to the American people. It's just difficult to see that sometimes among all of the pandering to corporate interests. So I concede that occasionally the Dems are beneficial for the working class, and almost/always better than the Republicans.

[–] Anamnesis@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't think you should state this so definitively in a couple sentences, when philosophers whose job it is to figure this out are still pouring out dissertations on this question.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

For practical purposes it has been settled. Maybe there is an objective good, but nobody has agreed on it so all we have is subjectivity.