I'm having trouble with the distinction between good vs

It's subjective to your culture and upbringing, excluding outliers such as psychological maniacs or edge lords on the world wide web.

>>1942056
You can have a bad sammich, but not an evil sammich.

>>1942061
I don't follow. Are the judgements of people on the internet what determine moral things such as "evil"?

Bad means that something is not as good as something else. Evil is something that actively and intentionally removes or prevents the growth of good.

Maybe this can help.
I speak portuguese, and we use two distinct words for "good" in this case.

Good as opposite to bad is "bem".
Good as opposite do evil is "bom".

In the first case, good means good actions or a good judgement. It's the same as "well".
In the second one, good is a trace of character, personality, nature, etc...

>>1942113
Interesting. I like that Portuguese has that distinction.

>>1942120
This is probably latin, but I don't know, so I'm speaking on behalf of my language.

I also think "bem vs mal" are much more effects and "bom vs mau" are the sources of these effects, the "forces" behind the good or bad consequences.

Nietszche thinks that since slaves could not have the good stuff like their masters (wine, women and wealth) they redefine "good" as "evil" and make "bad" stuff good (abstaining from wine, women, and wealth).

>>1942169
Is that it?

>>1942056
Good = anything I like
Evil = anything I don't like (ex. Jews)

>>1942120
>>1942135
Yeah all Latin languages have that disctinction.

>>1942205
Not that other Portuguese anon but:

We also have the distinction between the quality of fundamental being ("ser") and conditional being, being in some transitory state ("estar"). Like, "ser bom" and "estar bom/bem" have different meanings.

>>1942180
Yes. Defining enjoyable things as evil is the story of the fox and the sour grapes. Nietzsche hated this hate of the good things in life as evil just because one couldn't have it. In his biography you'll see how Nietzsche tried to enjoy all the good stuff in life to the fullest and didn't think bragging was evil.

As far as I understand:
good is objectively beneficial and bad is objectively detrimental
As opposed to
Good is subjectively morally right and Evil is subjectively morally wrong

Like pushing an old lady down a flight of stairs is Evil while being pushed down a flight of stairs is bad

Or I might be retarded

>>1942056
Good is a point of view Anakin.

if you are good and someone is bad you just feel good that you're not them
if you are good and someone is evil you fucking hate them and wish that they would stop

>>1942242
I interpreted Nietzsche as implying the opposite.

When he uses good vs. bad, he admits that these things are part of his perspective. A thing can be good — beneficial and agreeable, or bad — harmful and disagreeable.

Meanwhile, the usage of good and evil implies an intrinsic quality that transcends perspective into the realm of objectivity. A thing is good — morally perfect, or evil — immoral. Doctrines of good and evil can be found in all cultures, and are the stone tablets that hover over the heads of the members of those cultures that serve as the "universal law" those cultures MUST follow, without reason, simply because one thing is considered morally perfect and the other immoral, concepts that are drilled into people's heads by priests.

Nietzsche's adoption of good vs. bad is the same as him flipping the bird to religion and the culture of priests thousands of years old.

>>1942056
Don't think about it too much.

>>1942056
Bad means it has a harmful effect. Evil is someone deliberately being an asshole. So you can do bad things without being evil. The word good has multiple meanings that allow it to be the direct opposite of bad or evil.