The things you’re talking about are purely human designs of language. Nothing is objectively, universally “better” or “worse” because the terms themselves are relative and very subjective in their relativity. This is the case with many, many, many words. “Better” and “worse” aren’t concrete empirical existences, they’re terms used to gauge something’s worth in some particular context, whether it be explicit or implicit:
Apple #1 tastes better than Apple #2. — Gauging apples on their taste. [explicit]
Dull knives are worse than sharp knives. — Gauging knives on their ability to cut thing. [implicit]
No more do better and worse “exist” than meaning “exists”. I think you may be mixing up two different perspectives—trying to justify the nominal with the phenomenal, if one can put it in those terms. The fact that there’s no universal, objective standard for better/worse doesn’t make something meaningless anymore than the fact that there’s no universal, objective standard for meaning, or for what matters. I guess I’m not sure where the pragmatism comes in.
(On another note, would it be sound, according to your logic, to say that—since our belief in God, fundamentally, doesn’t matter, we might as well believe in God just in case we get to go to heaven?)
I don’t think I’m confused about this at all, I’m simply using the words in a much more specific way than you imagine. Yes “better” and “worse” are subjective and relative, but I am using them specifically with respect to the subject of oneself, and I’m using it specifically to compare entire future possible states of the world to other future possible states of the world. I mean “better” and “worse’ in the sense often described as “preferable”, with a sense of correctness to that preference as opposed to whim.
The question about God shows you’ve completely missed the point—which may be my fault as much as yours but there it is. To answer the question then, which may well help: It is not true to say that it’s impossible to make any progress or meaningful decisions without belief in God. The negation of “belief in God” does not prevent all possible progress, where as the negation of each of the examples I prevent does. Pascal’s Wager is also a form of pragmatism but is otherwise unrelated.
The things you’re talking about are purely human designs of language. Nothing is objectively, universally “better” or “worse” because the terms themselves are relative and very subjective in their relativity. This is the case with many, many, many words. “Better” and “worse” aren’t concrete empirical existences, they’re terms used to gauge something’s worth in some particular context, whether it be explicit or implicit:
Apple #1 tastes better than Apple #2. — Gauging apples on their taste. [explicit]
Dull knives are worse than sharp knives. — Gauging knives on their ability to cut thing. [implicit]
No more do better and worse “exist” than meaning “exists”. I think you may be mixing up two different perspectives—trying to justify the nominal with the phenomenal, if one can put it in those terms. The fact that there’s no universal, objective standard for better/worse doesn’t make something meaningless anymore than the fact that there’s no universal, objective standard for meaning, or for what matters. I guess I’m not sure where the pragmatism comes in.
(On another note, would it be sound, according to your logic, to say that—since our belief in God, fundamentally, doesn’t matter, we might as well believe in God just in case we get to go to heaven?)
I don’t think I’m confused about this at all, I’m simply using the words in a much more specific way than you imagine. Yes “better” and “worse” are subjective and relative, but I am using them specifically with respect to the subject of oneself, and I’m using it specifically to compare entire future possible states of the world to other future possible states of the world. I mean “better” and “worse’ in the sense often described as “preferable”, with a sense of correctness to that preference as opposed to whim.
The question about God shows you’ve completely missed the point—which may be my fault as much as yours but there it is. To answer the question then, which may well help: It is not true to say that it’s impossible to make any progress or meaningful decisions without belief in God. The negation of “belief in God” does not prevent all possible progress, where as the negation of each of the examples I prevent does. Pascal’s Wager is also a form of pragmatism but is otherwise unrelated.