i want some attractive points on the against of the motin that there is nothing good or bad thinking makes it?

Question

Please give me now the points

Answer 1

The notion that there is nothing good or bad? thinking makes it so?
The idea that something is good or bad is a judgment people make. Inherently, nothing is good or bad, it just is what it is.

There a few things society agrees on that are good or bad, in our society rooted in the ten commandments. Then laws are made based on these agreed upon judgments.
For example, most people agree murder is bad. But if someone murders for self-defense of themselves or family, then fewer find this to be bad. But it is still murder. So the same act is considered good or bad based on the context in which it occurs.

The ethical debates on assisted suicide for the chronically ill, if/when abortion should be legalized are just a couple of more examples of people believing, in general that life is good and should be protected no matter what ... versus the quality of life or an individual's right not to be governed by the masses...

That's just a starting point for what I hope will turn into an interesting discussion on your question.

Answer 2

First it's necessary to understand the statement.
I think Shakespeare was saying that without someone to rate a situation or happening, it's un-rated. So many things that aren't bad, are, because society says so. If you see something as bad that's good, the guilt is bad or it's bad to you. With no people to judge the earth would just spin on, un judged. One thing is for sure, unbiased examination gets at the truth better than biased, selective choosing of facts that fit our model of reality. Bad is a judgment word and an opinion. Descriptive words are more accurate and scientific. His intuition probably told him that, but I think that was less useful than bad and truth are relative. Relative to the situation, as sometimes right is right, depending where your going, and sometimes left is right.. lol I like Einstein's insight better. On thinking you might like this video.
If he was saying that you need a thinker to rate something, then I guess you have to argue that even without people things are good or bad, say to the animals, but you've already demolished the pro's, because they didn't understand the statement and there arguments are against a paper tiger, unrelated to the statement. It could be argues as bad because it may have been misunderstood by the audience and cause them to make unsound decisions on the basis of the statement. Also animals could certainly see things as bood or bad without thinking. lol So could people. Have fun.