Human suffering is bad

I'll get right into it by addressing con's points "Bad means 'of low or poor quality,' which is to say that there is nothing intrinsic to humans in the concept of bad we will be using." The word "bad" does not exist outside of the context of human language. Nor does the concept of bad exist outside of human interpretations of the world. Nor does the concept of quality, or of low, or of poor. Every concept that con wants to debate only exists as a function of human perception and language. To try to talk about something being "bad" independent of human beings is incoherent. Is it "bad" when a star supernovas? Are failed planets of poor quality because they didn't develop? What would that mean? The very concept of badness depends entirely on human concept and language. "Such a morality could easily transcend humankind, and the only logical conclusion is that morality does not need to follow the framework of people's pain to be coherent." It could, but that wouldn't prove my position to be false. And no, it does not need to follow a framework of pain to be coherent, but I didn't say it did. What I did say was that AS human beings with conceptions of suffering, we make judgments about suffering, namely that it is bad. Such a concept would not apply outside the context of human beings, and so it's not clear what it would for human suffering not to be bad. Con claims that "human suffering" is "very clear and objective," but "badness" is not. He provides no reason for thinking that human suffering is an objective concept. It's not. As I said, we all know what we MEAN by the term, but that doesn't make it objective. Pain is not human suffering to someone who cannot feel pain. Mental suffering is not human suffering to someone who is psychopathic. Therefore it is not 'objective,' it is just well understood. "Bad" operates in the same way, and I won't explain that again so as not to be redundant. "There are several metaethical propositions that suggest that badness doesn't have meaning, and there are certainly some who accept them. That plainly negates the claim." That is, of course, not true. There are new-earth creationists who suggest that the world is not 4.6 billion years old. But that does not "negate" the claim that it is, it just means they disagree. "People don't do what they do because it matters, they do what they do because they are pushed, biologically, into avoiding pain, and attaining pleasure." It does not follow in any way logically that just because something is biological it therefore does not matter. It can both be biological and matter. It is biological to avoid pain, but it also matters to us that we avoid pain. It is biological that we eat, but it also matters to us that we eat. In fact, I would argue that these things matter to us BECAUSE they are biological, and therefore the terms of obviously not mutually exclusive. "Suffering, happiness, and whatnot are simply tools we have adopted because of evolution. We are putting in an effort to avoid suffering to live." Again, this doesn't follow. Just because something is a tool of evolution doesn't mean it doesn't matter. (Again, I don't want to repeat myself; see above.) "The suggestion that when planets spin it matters, because otherwise they wouldn't, is laughable." Bad analogy. Planets don't have interests, of course. We do. Therefore, things matter to us. Therefore it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that avoiding human suffering matters, whereas it would not be to suggest that a planet spinning matters. "What we can do, however, is discuss the importance of human affairs objectively; from the perspective of truth and facts, as opposed to the emotional viewpoint of people." Human suffering is neither true nor false as it is a concept. The proposition, "Humans can suffer," or "human suffering is bad" have truth-properties because they make a claim about the world. Whether human suffering is important or not is up to human beings to decide, therefore 'objective' in this sense can only refer to human interpretations. "And what does it mean to be bad to human beings anyway?" Well, how did you know how to ask this question? Because you understand the meanings and uses of the words. Here's what it means to be bad to humans: to do something that humans view as bad to other humans. (Again, bad is a human concept. You can't abstract it from human beings or you're left with nothing.) "Likewise, though any given point in space can subjectively be the center of the universe, the resolution "I am at the center of the universe" would be false." Why? "The resolution "Human suffering is bad" could not stand simply due to that we (hypothetically) feel so, subjectively." Why? Again, human suffering and badness are human concepts. If humans can't make judgments about them, who can?