How can anything be true, really?

A person can neither be simply good or simply bad. We all portray qualities of “good-ness” as ell as qualities of “bad-ness.” What is fascinating is that the description of both of those words are completely subjective. I cannot even come to label myself as simply a good person; sure, I attempt to do good and live a life that I personally deem good, but that does not mean that it is a good life to someone else. I believe that I am a good person, but what does that actually entail? I could believe this notion but rob a bank. The act of robbing said bank is inherently bad, notably by law and social cues, but in a bank robbing club, wouldn’t it be a good thing to pull off the heist?

An action cannot simply be right or wrong. An action is simply committed, and the decision making that comes afterwards that determines the “good-ness” or the “bad-ness” is based on the determiner’s beliefs in regards to the action. And that decision of morality is not necessarily valid. 

A universality of “good” or “bad” cannot be established due to worldly conditions, such as personal experience resulting in diversity. Every single one of us contain a variety of nodes that cannot be replicated but still qualify each of us as human. These nodes change over time in a variety of ways, creating many different types of people in many different types of cultures.

I would like to restructure “a person can neither be simply good or simply bad.” The human is composed of basic nodes that make them human, such as the need for survival and food. These nodes are within all of us at birth and immediately start changing when interactions with the local environment begin. I will describe the phenomena that comes from firsthand experience as qualia, and I will assign this notion of qualia to randomized nodes that compose human beings. Two kids could never be exposed to the piano but one of them can show a natural ability and be able to understand how the piano works faster than the other kid. Let us say that various influential factors, such as a pianist parent or musical household, are completely absent. The random nodes are in effect and begin to adapt and change as the human does. These nodes also lay a basis in the “goodness” or “badness” of the individual. If someone is intrinsically considered to be “bad” based on whatever the idea of “bad” is, such as cheating and lying and committing crimes (which most people would agree that these are harmful acts), then their nodes are considered “bad” and must be altered in a way that promotes the ”good.” But it is quite unclear on how to change someone, especially when certain values have been in their environments for their entire lives. If someone grows up watching their father committing widely accepted heinous acts and get away with them, it is likely that that individual will assume that those actions are “good” and that they should also attempt them. Their nodes have been established to consider these actions as “moral” or “good,” showcasing the subjectivity found in what is actually “good” or “bad.” I would like to believe that most people would consider certain crimes to be inhumane and “bad,” but I cannot rely on my personal experience of the world, which I spent with most people from the same area as me, and apply my own qualia to the world and assume that everything interacts with each other in the way that I personally see fit.

I still agree with my original offering of the inability to label a person as “good” or “bad” since both traits are subjective. I believe that all people display certain qualities of “badness” and “goodness” in their actions, but what I consider to be under those terms is not universally accepted. There is no universal “good” or “bad,” since the determiner’s belief in regards to the action committed is biased because of their qualia and personal life experience in the culture that they flourished in. My rejection of universality also rejects universal morality for the same reasons; cultural experiences are vastly different because of the diversity that has been adopted into the world, therefore a likeminded groupthink is not possible.