Nothing is ever completely beneficial.

"With the ice-cream issue, here is another interesting point. Why is ice-cream bad? It is unhealthy. Why? Lot's of fat ad sugar. Why is that bad you ask? It damages the body. What is wrong with that? You can be ill, die or face painful retribution. What is wrong with that? In itself, nothing. The only reason it is viewed that way is the popular mentality. If the boy did not worry or care about death, falling ill or receiving painful retribution. Then whether it is healthy or not does not matter. I do not want to go into this philosophical debate, but when I said it was subjective, I meant it. Because nothing is really objective. I would not eat ice-cream absurdly, simply because I accept the popular mentality that it is bad for you, but the popular mentality is generated by strings of subjectivity. It is in the interests of mankind, but implying the interests are all the same, is implying we all have the same perceptual set, which isn't true. If the boy loved healthy, and to him dying and pain and the punishment with ice-cream wasn't bad, then there is nothing but benefit for him. To someone else, there might be a downside, but as I argued, benefit is only a subjective matter and must be placed on such a threshold. So from the boy's perspective, he has nothing but benefit. He dies, and what? "There is wrong in that. Unhealthiness can lead to illness as we explained, and lot's of sugar and possibly death etc. Because of such, it is bad. This cannot be subjective. The human body strives for survival. "And most importantly, survival is a state of mind." [1] So in such a case, it is fact that a human want's to survive. It is not, and never will be a subjective manner. Though someone may think death is nothing, it is human nature to think otherwise. Since everything can lead to death, and the desperation for survival is not subjective, nothing is ever completly beneficial.But not all people want to survive. If survival was such a set-in-stone issue, then suicide wouldn't exist. Sure, from an evolutionary perspective, yes, but people can want to end their life. People can have no regard for anything and nihilism is something people conform to. Suicides happen, some people go out of their ways to save others simply because the value of life is subjective. The value of anything is subjective. So for someone who does not worry about death, for a value to be placed on death, the desperation of survival is subjective. So death can happen, that can still not hinder anything depending on who you are."I do admit faults in my example, but let me modify it to someone who simply does not care. He is the ultimate nihilist and does not give a single care into whether he is anxious, stressed, whether he fails or not. He does enjoy things, but does not care till the point where he is never anxious or stressed. He could fail, but so what? Failure has negative connotations bought on by the popular mentality, but it isn't neccesarily an objective truth that failure is wrong. His life might be messed up from the perspective of another, but to him it isn't what is true is that he is having fun doing this task. Thus, only benefit."First of all, failure can lead to depression. Depression can lead to illeness, and death, which I have already proved is not good by fact to humans. Having the risk of depression is in itself already a bad side. Since there is now a downside established, and much more unmentioned, such a case is not completly beneficial, nor is any other case.I extend my previous argument. Depression, illness and death are only bad if death is seen as bad. People who do not value life do not value death, so depression isn't something which can hinder a benefit."The definition is then an entire profit/advantage gained from something. You did not doubt that the advantage isn't subjective, and enitre simply means, "With no part left out; whole"Exatcly no part left out. So for it to be completly beneficial, it would have to have nothing but a good side. So if there was some how a neutral side to it, it would be unable to be comepletly beneficial.Again, I don't find this logical, and I see where you are coming from but it depends on how much you look at in the first place. So if I absolutely love a particular object, I get full benefit from it. The colour, texture, its uses how it affects others, as long as I do not value life then what it can do to me or others doesn't matter, it doesn't hinder the fact that what I receive particularly from that object is benefit. We can go deeper and say I am only looking at the colour, which I enjoy. The colour brings to me nothing but benefit. Maybe the actual device could kill me, and even if I do have an evolutionary fear of death, the colour of that object brings me nothing but benefit. Yes, a meteor could come and kill me, but the colour is what we're looking at. Outside there is no set line between related and not related, so we can only look at the colour."So everything about something must gain profit, which is subjective. So in the case of the nihilist, the situation was the homework and the small bubble around it. As the fact that he did not care meant that any possible failure wasn't bad, it only coincided with his beliefs, so that is a positive. As any possible failures, which he did not view as bad, weren't then even failures, he is simply left with the enjoyment from that work. Nothing but enjoyment. Yes, anything could have suddenly went wrong and killed him, but excusing the fact that he doesn't mind, that isn't relating to the homework, so is not part of his fulfillment, of complete happiness. Thank you."In the case of the nihilist, he is having too much fun. Having too much fun can lead to ignorance of all the down sides we need to change in life, which is a down side. Also having too much fun can lead to death, which is bad objectively, as I have proven.Your whole argument has been what I have disproven. If he does not care for life whatsoever, which happens to people, then the ignorance is not of any importance. Viewing in closer, from the actual doing of the work he is getting nothing but benefit.In conclusion, nothing is ever completly beneficial as I have proven. Since anything can lead to death, and death is objectively wrong, or bad, nothing can have complete good sides. Your welcom.If death was objectively wrong as I said before, suicides would not exist. Death is not evolutionary beneficial, but neither is sexual monogamy. And all values of things are subjective, so is the value of death, so is anything which follows on. And things cannot objectively have benefit, but they can to someone or something, which is where the issue lies. Thank you.