A parable of perfect Nihilism?
A man hath two sons. To one son he giveth love and care and food and clothing and trinkets and baubles to satisfy his every desire and to the other he doth cast out into the world, naked and starving with nought but cuts and bruises and harsh words which still echoeth in his ears to remind him of his family and home.
The first son groweth up to be a tyant, a murderer and a pederast. He taketh from the mouths of babes to maketh himself fat and lazy in his iniquity.
The second son groweth up to be a good man, wise and humble in nature and in deeds. The second son doth save many a life by his own toil and sacrifice and yet expecteth he nothing in return.
And verily I say unto you - tis easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for judgement to be passed down upon either of these two tossers by any authority other than that of their fellow man.
The grand scheme of things sayeth - "Fuck 'em both, in measure equal"
No way. Well, not about Nihilism, but the concept of subjective good/bad. The concept of good and bad being absolutely subjective is intuitively incorrect for a reason. It's the same reason we still use the words - bad is by definition that that causes pain or anxiety. The reason that this is mixed up in definition, I could only guess, is from an echo to rationalize horrible religious acts -- which comes out to also make intuitive sense. Why religion? Because religion is the only thing that tells us that everyone is not equal, therefore an action from one group could be more good than the other, or conversely 'less sinful' than the other. Also, the justification of personified Gods in theistic religions.
Rules to use to measure 'good' and 'bad' of a subject:
•Since we have no way of testing the existence of philosophical zombies (or a zombie percentage), we should assume all perception as equally valuable.
•Deeming an action better or worse based on a 'what if' hypothesis is arbitrary since we cannot change the past.
•Good and bad have diminishing value, depending on the original amount of pleasure/happiness or pain/anxiety experienced. Ex: Mortally wounding someone twice is not as bad as mortally wounding two people once.
•A judgment that considers the indirect affects of a subject is incorrect, because it is arbitrary of the action itself.
•Unintended affect and action defaults to the cause of nature, therefore a subject should not be judged on action unintended.
By compiling the average 'good' or 'bad' resulting from a subject on a group, and following these rules, a scale can be theoretically made. Aka an 'objective judgment scale'. The final number would then be modified according to the personal preferences of the affected subjects.