Post by Arlon10 on Aug 22, 2018 4:49:20 GMT
By your definition of "good" is pizza good and why?
Nutrition is seen as a good thing.
Pizza is nutritious.
Therefore pizza is a good thing.
Nutrition is good since it allows the process of providing or obtaining the means necessary for health and growth.
Now, as requested, this is my definition which is pretty much standard and the notion that pizza is good food on this basis (in moderation and proportionate to the individual at least) would be likely almost universal. You may now decide it is not yours, since you like things arbitrary and all; and may argue over what, to you, nutrition and good food means. But it does not change things more widely. You may also, as previously noted, even have no idea from the start of what constitutes nutrition, good food, health or even pizza, since you won't apparently recognise definitions or knowledge not arbitrary and mutually agreed and your own suggestions, while expectedly arbitrary, may not be mutually agreed - in which case you have no way of judging what I and others say is right or wrong. But that's your problem, and not one for the rest of us.
I hope this helps.
Had you tried another approach ...
Delicious is good.
Pizza is delicious.
Therefore pizza is good.
Far more people, including sensible adults for a change, would agree with you. Yet even then there would be plenty of people who disagree that pizza is delicious.
Notice we are not getting a consensus here with "nutritious" or "delicious."
There are no mutually agreed upon criteria for good. The criteria for some people might be "nutritious." The criteria for others might be "delicious." The criteria for yet others might be "inexpensive." The criteria for yet others might be "easy to prepare." Even when people agree on, for example, "nutritious" they will disagree just how nutritious various foods are.
For many people how "good" pizza is will depend on several of those qualities. However those people will likely disagree how much each matters. Some might count nutrition first, in which case pizza is not really very good, others might count ease of preparation first. I suppose a large number of people would agree on foods being "good" that have both nutrition and taste.
For some people a pizza is good if it has "all natural ingredients." Are they wrong? Is that a "fallacy"? I have tried to explain to you that it is not a fallacy if it is mutually agreed that natural ingredients are good. The Britannica article is only saying that natural ingredients are not the definition of good without mutual agreement, or "inherently."
It should be obvious though that I was right when I said you have no mutually agreed upon criteria for your definition of good.
It should also be obvious that people might mutually agree in some organization or other any particular quality will be their criteria for good, including being natural.
This concept of mutual agreement is critical in solving issues in society. Science cannot solve any problems unless people agree what the problem is. Religion is a systematic way of bringing an assembly of people into mutual agreement what needs to be done, how, when and where. The "why" is obtained by mutual agreement. Just as some people might count pizza with all natural ingredients as "good" pizza, some people might count natural causes for actions as "good" in many cases.
I know it will help if you desist from claiming your opponents have committed "fallacies." Just as I explained, you are trying to follow rules that you don't understand. You are trying to compel others to follow your misguided notions of the rules.