This is no conclusion. You can call it objective. All moral is based on subjectiveness: Different people have different morals. Especially ideology can have different morals. For example Nazism has a morality that the (in the eyes of the ruling party) "weak" kin should be exterminated and the "strong" kin should spread more and survive.
This is a moral standpoint, and because objects like "good" and "bad" are based on moral, the political correctness of the moral is subjective.
In ideology there is no right and wrong if you have no premises and no moral yourself, so to speak, if you're really objective.
Calling something objective is in truth just reactionistic.
But of course I think that in any debate there should be moral premises, like for example a democratic parlament should always have the premise: "for the people".
In reality it's quite different sadly.
Of course different people again have different understandings on what makes everyone in a democratic society happy, but for example right wing parties that praise capitalism or fascism there are definitely people that would gain from that.
Capitalism has the consequence that the rich get richer, and so to not devalue the currency, the poorer have to get poorer, even if they don't get less money, but the amount of money that exists devalues the money of the poor. Inflation. And if political power can be bought through lobbying or corruption, there does not exist a democracy.
Fascism has the consequence that one group of people become absolute and govern the rest which is definitely not democratic.
Hmm I think I have to disagree to the definition of poetry, because I think art in any form can also teach somebody something.
Art is always a mirror: In seeing how you react to art, you learn about yourself.
For example I think for me I really valued for example the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion and the manga Berserk, because both talk a lot about themes I had to struggle a lot with in my life until now.
But I think that this aspect of art does not have to be in every art there is. Impressionist paintings for example often don't have any lesson to tell but, like any art, tell a story about some emotion and in Impressionism, a moment and you feel that moment.
I would argue that things that shock yourself are more likely to induce this self reflection, which is of course natural in a sense, because there is no obvious point about thinking about yourself, when you enjoy art, because you just want to enjoy it and not think about it and reflect why you thought about it like you did.
Interestingy I had a conversation about a hard question with somebody recently: What makes art good? I argued that for myself anything that changes me or makes me feel a lot is good art and they argued that the more art makes you think about yourself, the better it is. So to speak I had a more consumeristic view, and they an intellectual view.
But I think that both opinions are in a way what I truly love about art: It makes me think and reflect. By either being shocked and processing this experience or by being actively motivated to think. Neon Genesis Evangelion and Berserk did both of these things for me.
In summary: I again rambled about something not at all relevant to this post, but I wanted to say it.
Spiders probably do more good for the environment than you.