What is good?

[Captain_Nick]

Following on from the other thread 'is humanity good, evil or neutral' it struck me that the question can't be answered unless is it first understood.

There are four words in the question that I don't really understand and I was hoping the clever people that post on here can point me in the right direction.

Forget about 'evil', 'neutral' and 'humanity' for the moment. What is good? What is it? Where can I find it? How can I tell if some object possesses the property of 'goodness'?

I'm not talking about the word 'good' or the idea of 'goodness' that is linked to the word within your mind. I mean actual 'good', the same actual stuff that is the red in a red ball, if you follow me.

Lots of people have lots of ideas on what good is so hopefully we can get a good discussion going here.

 

[Myasishchev]

You know, captain, every day of my life, I become more and more convinced that the wisest and the best, is to focus our attention on the good and the beautiful--if we just take the time to look at it.

Anyway, "good" is the surplus of pleasure over pain. However, it's entirely arbitrary, or at best individualized, how pleasure and pain are measured, which leads one to suspect that the whole concept is based on nothing more than personal opinion.

 

[Captain_Nick]

Is it good then to have sex with another mans wife - given that the other man does not find out about it.

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

 

[Myasishchev]

Until detection, I suppose net good is generated.

But if she stopped, thought about it, and brought a friend so they all could just have a fourway you'd see good just shoot through the roof. Or at least onto the ceiling.

 

[Candlelight]

Good is a cold beer.

Or is that happiness?

 

[SiorX]

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

I am genuinely disappointed that you got in with that before me.

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

I am genuinely disappointed that you got in with that before me.

I was happy I got it in first because I knew there'd be five people behind me wanting to post it.

 

[M'Sharak]

Good is a cold beer.

Or is that happiness?

As long as the beer doesn't run out, I'll vote for either. Or both.

 

[Gepard]

You know, captain, every day of my life, I become more and more convinced that the wisest and the best, is to focus our attention on the good and the beautiful--if we just take the time to look at it.

You're some guy, Myasishchev

 

[Holdfast]

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

I am genuinely disappointed that you got in with that before me.

I was happy I got it in first because I knew there'd be five people behind me wanting to post it.

I'm appalled it took this board 3 posts.






Vaguely serious answer that I'm feeling too lazy to expand properly: whatever contributes to your maximum genuine happiness. Of course, I'm begging the question slightly here, but since I don't think there can be an abstract absolute good without knowing the universe in an absolute and total sense, I don't really have another option but to give an individualist, relativist answer. In a very real way, therefore, I find the question meaningless, but hey that hasn't stopped me answering other topics here.

Having said that, I do think most people find it hard to grasp what genuinely makes them happy, and so find it hard to answer the question on any profound level, even a relativist one. But absolutist answers are even more of a cop-out, to my way of thinking.

 

[scotpens]

Good is a cold beer.

Or is that happiness?

You're thinking of a warm puppy.

Good is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Good is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad.

 

[6079SmithW]

In Catholic school I was taught that love is the root of all good. Also, that God is the root of all love. So, good is God and, by extension, good is love.

 

[Jadzia]

[Good is] whatever contributes to your maximum genuine happiness.

That's an interesting definition. I'm trying to think of how it performs in social scenarios.

"Good intentions" would be intentions to help maximise another's happiness.

"A good group of people" would be a group of people with good intentions. ie, they're collectively motivated to help maximise each other's happiness.

For that to be successful, they'd all have to derive good from the group. ie, members would have to be willing to understand what makes the persons they are helping happy, and not project their own values.

If two people's values are at odds, then one helping the other could mean that's ones happiness is reduced in the process of helping the other... and if those values are sufficiently separated, there's a risk of the losses outweighing the gains, and the group being self-destructive.

So a consequence seems to be that "good" is a label we apply to those whose grasp for happiness is sufficiently compatible with our own that social interaction is mutually beneficial.

And "evil" is a label we apply to those whose grasp for happiness is sufficiently incompatible with our own that social interaction is mutually pernicious.

 

[Skellington]

Cows are content. We eat them. Contentedness is by no means a guarantee of long-term success, so I don't think that it can be seriously considered to be synonymous with goodness. HG Wells knew that when he wrote The Time Machine. Contentedness can lead to stagnation, too.

I don't think that an object taken out of context can be considered good. Out of context, it's not doing anything. It's not fulfilling any utility and nor is it pleasing the senses or stimulating the mind. So, then, does that mean that good must be a process, requiring the dimension of time in order to happen? I would say that good is subjective; from a biological viewpoint it would seem that we're essentially gene delivery vehicles, so is "good" what benefits our genes and those of our close relatives? If so, that would make it malleable, given that life is essentially conflict. Some might argue that good can potentially be represented as a platonic ideal, being either the maximum pleasure for the maximum number of people or the maximum level of fulfilment for the maximum mentality. However, even that view may be flawed. Just how thoroughly do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

It's good to muse semi-randomly.

 

[JarodRussell]

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

Absolutely awesome!

 

[Holdfast]

[Good is] whatever contributes to your maximum genuine happiness.

That's an interesting definition. I'm trying to think of how it performs in social scenarios.

Interesting, but not terribly original, I'm afraid. it's merely an individualist restatement (refocusing?) of Bentham's utilitarianism, with all the same potential strengths and weaknesses on scaling. Some of which you derived for yourself in the rest of the post. However, it certainly suits my worldview, most of the time.

 

[Captain_Nick]

In a very real way, therefore, I find the question meaningless

I'm so glad you have said this, you've summed it all up nicely and saved me from posting a savage deconstruction which quite frankly I don't have the inclination to post this morning.

The question that I have asked without asking is a much more interesting one.

Why would anyone waste time debating whether 'humanity' (whatever that is) is inherently good, evil or 'neutral' (whatever that is) when there is no such thing as good, evil, neutral or humanity?

 

[Holdfast]

In a very real way, therefore, I find the question meaningless

I'm so glad you have said this, you've summed it all up nicely and saved me from posting a savage deconstruction which quite frankly I don't have the inclination to post this morning.

The question that I have asked without asking is a much more interesting one.

Why would anyone waste time debating whether 'humanity' (whatever that is) is inherently good, evil or 'neutral' (whatever that is) when there is no such thing as good, evil, neutral or humanity?

Because not everyone shares the same worldview and if you accept my relativist/individualist argument as you say you do re: "what is good", by definition you also have to be interested other people's positions on the matter, as they can be either used or discarded to iteratively improve your own relativist position.

In short, meaningless questions can sometimes yield meaningful answers.

 

[Captain_Nick]

I haven't studied philosophy so don't know what you mean by 'relativist'. But it seems to me that what people think about the world doesn't change the world itself - and so what people think about things is meaningless. I try to learn from the world itself, and if that means getting rid of words and ideas, so be it.