> you in this case subjectively add

You’re also subjectively adding that “maintaining well being” is a positive in your example.

> decide whether they’re suffering

I already showed that everyone suffers by definition. That is true regardless of whether or not they view their lives as a net positive, a net negative, or neutral.

There is no such thing as “objectively right” or “objectively wrong”. We may subjectively agree about what we consider “right” or what we consider “wrong”, but that doesn’t make those things objectively so.

Right, but life is not “sacred”.

Something being illegal also doesn’t make it objectively bad. For example, atheism is criminalized in Saudi Arabia, but it isn’t objectively bad (again, nothing is).

However, I do agree with you in subjectively determining that genocide is not good (it is also not objectively good, as nothing is). It is also not objectively bad.

Your “maintaining well being” example is also flawed as that is also not objectively good.

> it is objectively good to keep hydrated to maintain well being

Using that logic, it is objectively good to invade countries to expand your territory.

“Maintaining well being” cannot be considered objectively good. Nothing can, just as nothing can be considered objectively bad.

> assumption that they are or were suffering

Not an assumption, everybody that exists suffers. If you doubt that, suffering is literally defined as “the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship”. One technically undergoes hardship while trying to get food, which one needs in order to live.

Agreed.

That’s conditional, not really objective.

What happens as a result of that isn’t objectively bad, and besides, that will happen to us all no matter what.

Things can be neither good nor bad (and objectively, they are always neither of those). But if you want me to name one thing I would consider a positive, if it is done, the people it is being done to would never suffer again. I don’t support it, because this is selective, which means treating groups unequally with no reason, which I don’t agree with. So no, I don’t consider it good.

However, nothing can be objectively wrong no matter what it is, because “wrong” is a subjective statement, just as “right” or “good” are.

I don’t support Putin. I’ve already said I’m not supporting Russia, but it’s also not objectively wrong (because nothing is objectively wrong) to invade another country.

There is no “sense of enlightenment”.

My statements aren’t “inane”, but please, enlighten me. Why do you think so?

In fact, the people trying to debate with me on this are inevitably making inane statements.

The first three words of your comment, if you mean it literally and not just something people say, draw into question your credibility on calling things “inane”.

I did, though. They’re claiming it’s objectively wrong.

Objective means factual. Good and bad are not fact-based.

Further, one could argue that action is actually doing the person a favor.

It’s not nonsense just because you disagree. It’s actually what this sub is generally obsessed with, nuance.

What?

There’s no such thing as objectively wrong, so no, it’s not objectively wrong. However, most of us may agree in subjectively considering it wrong.

Given the atrocious strategy and execution Russia has used, I am not supporting them. I am not intentionally being a contrarian. However, I don’t think the rest of the world is doing the right thing by intervening. Ukraine does not have any binding military alliances (if they did, those countries would have officially joined in against Russia) and these other countries are violating neutrality.

Your comment did not at all address the point I was making that there’s nothing that we can say is objectively “wrong” about this.

Technically, Putin would suffer if he loses, so not everyone on the planet would benefit.

Also, who’s to say what’s “wrong” and what’s not? Most consider it wrong, but that doesn’t make it the objective statement you phrased it as.