When you say “Assuming we’re not radically mistaken”...you’re using the term “we” as though you’re assuming I and others agree with you. But I don’t know if I agree with you, and there’s a good chance I don’t. What do you mean when you say that pleasure is good for the being experiencing it? For that matter, what do you mean by “pleasure”? If “pleasure” refers to any experience that an agent prefers, and for something to be good for something is for them to prefer it, then you’d be saying something I’d agree with: that any experiences an agent prefers are experiences that agent prefers. But if you’re not saying that, then I am not sure what you are saying.
I think there are facts about what is good according to different people’s stances. So my pleasure can be good according to my stance. But I do not think pleasure is stance-independently good
In fact, pleasure without goodness in some sense seems like an incoherent concept.
What do you mean by “goodness”?
But sentient beings are a perfectly valid element of the world/universe, and so goodness for a given being simply implies goodness at large (all else equal of course).
I’m perfectly fine with saying that there are facts about what individuals prefer and consider good, but the fact that something is good relative to someone’s preferences does not entail that it is good simpliciter, good relative to my preferences, intrinsically good, or anything like that. The fact that this person is a “valid element of the world/universe” doesn’t change that fact.
There’s no spooky metaphysical sense in which it’s written into the stars; it is simply directly implied by the facts about what some things are like to some sentient beings.
What you’re saying doesn’t strike me so much as metaphysically spooky but as conceptually underdeveloped. I don’t think it’s clear (at least, not to me) what you mean when you refer to goodness. For instance, I cannot tell if you are arguing for some kind of moral realism or normative realism.
Now if you accept the above, here’s a simple thought experiment: consider two states of the world, identical in every way except in world A you’re experiencing a terrible stomach ache and in world B you’re not.
The previous argument implies that there is simply more badness in world A, full stop.
What would it mean for there to be “more badness” in world A? Again, it’s just not clear to me what you mean by the terms you are using.
When you say “Assuming we’re not radically mistaken”...you’re using the term “we” as though you’re assuming I and others agree with you. But I don’t know if I agree with you, and there’s a good chance I don’t. What do you mean when you say that pleasure is good for the being experiencing it? For that matter, what do you mean by “pleasure”? If “pleasure” refers to any experience that an agent prefers, and for something to be good for something is for them to prefer it, then you’d be saying something I’d agree with: that any experiences an agent prefers are experiences that agent prefers. But if you’re not saying that, then I am not sure what you are saying.
I think there are facts about what is good according to different people’s stances. So my pleasure can be good according to my stance. But I do not think pleasure is stance-independently good
What do you mean by “goodness”?
I’m perfectly fine with saying that there are facts about what individuals prefer and consider good, but the fact that something is good relative to someone’s preferences does not entail that it is good simpliciter, good relative to my preferences, intrinsically good, or anything like that. The fact that this person is a “valid element of the world/universe” doesn’t change that fact.
What you’re saying doesn’t strike me so much as metaphysically spooky but as conceptually underdeveloped. I don’t think it’s clear (at least, not to me) what you mean when you refer to goodness. For instance, I cannot tell if you are arguing for some kind of moral realism or normative realism.
What would it mean for there to be “more badness” in world A? Again, it’s just not clear to me what you mean by the terms you are using.