Nothing is ever completely beneficial.

"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."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 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."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.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 youLook, I accepted your definition before, but this is just being downright meticulous. You have stated that nothing can be nothing but benefit if there is neutrality of some sort. Well then nothing can be nothing but X by that logic. No one can feel nothing but happiness, sadness, anger or love because they would be standing on a floor which they don't have these feelings to. You must have benefit in EVERYTHING for one particular thing to have benefit then, which is absurd. I will now take the Oxford Dictonaries definition, before it gets out of hand.Complete - "Entire; full"Benefit - "An advantage or profit gained from something"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:"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.