3 ms·
The statement that something is good, without further qualification, does tend to imply that it is universally held to be good. Albeit the two aren't necessaril
by yew 14y ago
The statement that something is good, without further qualification, does tend to imply that it is universally held to be good. Albeit the two aren't necessarily synonymous.
They tend to be taken as such in everyday conversation.
- corin_ 14y agoIn my opinion "good" is subjective by default, not objective. Further, I would think that even when objectiveness is implied it would be that the speaker thinks it should be universally held, not that it necessarily is. Gay marriage is not universally supported, this we know. Do you personally think it is "good"? If not, does that mean you think it is the opposite, "bad", just because not everyone supports it?
- yew 14y agoThink of it as a matter of communication. Everyone (or at least almost everyone) is lobbying for 'good stuff,' so it's not a particularly useful statement to make all by itself. > Further, I would think that even when objectiveness is implied it would be that the speaker thinks it should be universally held, not that it necessarily is. Hence the two not being synonymous. Perhaps I simply happen to know an unusually large number of people who believe that moral correctness implies a convincing argument.