We can formalize the argument in this way:
- There is good and evil.
- The good tries with all its power to prevent the evil from doing more evil (otherwise the good wouldn't be the good).
- A possible world is the best world if it contains a maximum distribution of good and minimum distribution of evil among all other possible worlds.
- Therefore we constantly live in the best of all possible worlds.
Question for those who are "beyond good and evil": If there's no good and evil, how can we still argue that we live in the best of all possible worlds? Does it make sense?
Question for those who believe in good and evil but reject the argument: How is it possible to criticize the above argument and deny that we live in the best of all possible worlds?
Question for those who accept the argument: Are there any practical consequences for believing in this argument? Can this argument profoundly change a person's worldview or is it a merely formal logical proposition? If I say such things, won't I sound stupid or childish?