Nothing is ever completely beneficial.

Thanks for the response. I hope we continue this great, respectful debate.Rebuttals "First of all, I do not need to go into detail about how good and bad are subjective. As long as people have different perceptual sets, as long as different things affect my perception to yours, which they do, then the way in which things are percieved is subjective. So effectively, this debate is, "For something to be completely beneficial is for it to only have good sides, and no bad sides whatsoever, dependant on the person." This means that if benefit is the good thing according to you, then benefits are subjective. They have to be, they affect the person. Even if we take the definiton, "Resulting in good; favourable or advantageous", then we have established that good is subjective. And an advantage from a situation can only affect those involved, as an advantage is "a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favourable or superior position". And a favourable position, is again, a subjective matter." Yes this is true, however irrelevant. If someone were to think something was completely beneficial, they can have an opinion, however this does not make it completly beneficial. Let us say a boy wanted to eat ice cream. Though he may think it is completly beneficial because it tastes good, or it gives him pleasure, this is not true. He chose to ignore the fact that it is unhealthy. Now if he ate it in moderation, it would be neutral, not beneficial. What I am basically trying to explain is that even if we believe their is no down side, there always will be, so nothing can ever be completly beneficial."I am sitting at home, and I am doing an enjoyable piece of work which I have no bouts against, it causes me great pleasure. It is coursework, so due for almost 5 months time, in which we will proceed to get a similar task, but is estimated to finish within a month. Doing this task is also going to raise my work level to the maximum, as it counts as a majority of my mark for which ever exam I am sitting next year. I am also someone who doesn't fear death, and this matters. I realise I could die any moment and take life qualitatively, rather than quantitatively. " There are down sides to this, regardless if you care to consider them or not. Here are some, you can get a bad grade, possibly making a huge difference in your life. Another thing is that it can cause stress, and anxiety. Though it may not occur to you, it is possible. So as you can see, even though in your example you ignore the down/ neutral sides, they're still there."For this to be completely beneficial, there must not be a downside." And there must not be a neutral side either. If something were to have a neutral side, it would not be completly beneficial either, even though I didn't mention it in the definition. If there is a neutral side, then it is not completly beneficial, because there are parts that don't effect you, or benefit you."Possible downsides could be that it is a waste of time, he could be doing something more enjoyable, and I'll take any you have to give me. However he doesn't fear death, so time isn't a problem, and he did this at his own discretion. At this point, I cannot see a negative to this from his perspective. Maybe from someone else's, but those aren't connected as benefit is subjective. Thank you." You exaplined how there are "possible" downsides. But even though they are possible, they are downsides to the scenario, because of such, this scenario is not completly beneficial. Subjectivity has nothing to do with it. No matter what, there is a negative or neutral response to any scenario. Your welcome.Sorry for the short argument, I am tight on time right now.