> [!tldr] Is a tree on the moon good? Is a tree that no [[Defining life & consciousness is hard.|conscious]] being experiences or benefits from "good"? A [[Utilitarianism|Utilitarian]] take on this question is - **no**. It's not "good" nor "bad", because both "good" and "bad" are evaluations of **value**, and value requires consciousness to value it. A tree that no conscious being exists, then, isn't "good" or "bad" - it just *is*. There's also the possibility that there exists observer(s) on another plane of existence (i.e. God) that is capable of experiencing and evaluating *everything, anywhere*. At which point the tree on the moon **is** good. ...although it's now occurring to me that I'm still looking at this through a utilitarian lens. I'm shifting the utility to "that which God may value", though. That's a tricky territory. One I think I'll deliberately stop short of pontificating about here publicly. I know nothing and do not wish to influence anyone on any topics regarding [[Religion]]. I should probably write [[A note about my notes and religion]]. > [!note] > This is straight-up philosophy. The "tree on the moon" is not meant to be taken literally - if there actually was a tree on a the moon that was be *awesome*. **** # More ## Source - conversation with Zane