What is good?

[ecofarm]

Okay, allow me to rephrase: atheism doesn't produce social and scientific advancement, but religion certainly curtails it.

Objects do nothing. Assigning blame to an object creates a generalization. Very few, perhaps an insignificant percentage, of religious people are anti science.

 

[HumblePi]

Many of you believe that government is good; or that it's necessary to protect what is good; or that it is required for some greater good of society. But, what does good mean to you? If we are going to debate these subjects, it's important to know what each other means.

To you...what is good precisely? What is evil? What differentiates right from wrong? For the more critical thinkers, what exactly is your moral philosophy?

I wouldn't describe government as 'good' but but some form of government is necessary. To believe that government is 'not good' simply means that someone believes that anarchy is good. It's the distinction between law and order and complete and total lawlessness. Government should have one single goal for its citizens, I'll refer to Hippocrates and the physicians oath. “to keep them from harm and injustice.” (the words 'do no harm' don't actually appear in the writings of Hippocrates)

Regarding the philosophical differences between good and evil, right and wrong - there's massive amounts of writings on the topic but to keep it simple, live by the Golden Rule and your moral core will guide you through the choices you have to make.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

But he might have it backwards.

Objects do nothing. Assigning blame to an object creates a generalization. Very few, perhaps an insignificant percentage, of religious people are anti science.

That's like saying fascism or racism does nothing. Religious ideology is far more than a mere object, ecofarm; it motivates and influences public policy, and there is an undeniable correlation between religious beliefs and genuinely harmful policies, especially in the area of education. I've seen the consequences of abstinence only sex ed firsthand, ecofarm. Only the religiously motivated could see such curriculum as a good idea.

 

[ecofarm]

That's like saying fascism or racism does nothing. Religious ideology is far more than a mere object, ecofarm; it motivates and influences public policy, and there is an undeniable correlation between religious beliefs and genuinely harmful policies, especially in the area of education. I've seen the consequences of abstinence only sex ed firsthand, ecofarm. Only the religiously motivated could see such curriculum as a good idea.

Fascism and racism are objectively bad for society. One oughtn't compare religion to that. What good has ever been done in their names? And those are objects. No blaming objects. People are responsible for what they do, no matter what dress a book wears.

In the modern world, religious anti science exists only in the social sphere.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Fascism and racism are objectively bad for society. One oughtn't compare religion to that. What good has ever been done in their names? And those are objects. No blaming objects. People are responsible for what they do, no matter what dress a book wears.

In the modern world, religious anti science exists only in the social sphere.

And that social sphere is responsible for the execution of homosexuals in the Middle East, a plethora of subpar public and private school curriculums, and centuries of marriage rights suppression for gays in the western world.

I can and will blame religion for the abstinence-only education that left many of my classmates trapped in loveless relationships with unwanted children, for the restriction of women's bodily autonomy, and for the continued decay of American politics. Evangelicals are the overwhelming majority of Trump's supporters, after all.

You might not have grown up in the bible belt, but I have. I can name no less than three flat earthers and a half dozen evolution deniers off the top of my head, all of which I have met in a single small town. The only common thread between them all is their deep religious convictions.

 

[ecofarm]

I can and will blame religion for the abstinence-only education that left many of my classmates trapped in loveless relationships with unwanted children,

I blame beer.

 

[spud_meister]

I defend myself.

Aggression is defined as the initiation of force. Using force to defend oneself from someone that is aggressive is not aggressive. They initiate force, you use force in defense.

Ok, so if I walk up behind you and shoot you dead, I get away free because you couldn't defend yourself and it's immoral for anyone else to initiate force?

 

[spud_meister]

Okay, allow me to rephrase: atheism doesn't produce social and scientific advancement, but religion certainly curtails it.

Interesting. What percentage of the population being atheist is enough to trigger an observable increase in the rate of social and scientific advancement, and where has this been observed?

 

[vesper]

Many of you believe that government is good; or that it's necessary to protect what is good; or that it is required for some greater good of society. But, what does good mean to you? If we are going to debate these subjects, it's important to know what each other means.

To you...what is good precisely? What is evil? What differentiates right from wrong? For the more critical thinkers, what exactly is your moral philosophy?

For me what is determined good, right from wrong stems from biblical teachings. And isn't it special that the laws of G-d and the laws of nature do compliment one another.

Though I look to biblical teachings and my faith to determine what is right and wrong, I believe every person is born with a crude basic belief within them to know good vs. evil. But it is their own choice what to pursue
.

I so much wish that the good of people would be highlighted in our media coverage properly because there is much positive. But instead our MSM chooses to focus on the negative.



In closing all I have is Psalm 34 if you want to know what pursuing good benefits you. Peace.

 

[Anarchon]

Ok, so if I walk up behind you and shoot you dead, I get away free because you couldn't defend yourself and it's immoral for anyone else to initiate force?

You'd have still initiated force and done evil. Others would not abide cold-blooded murderers. You'd at least be shunned, which does not violate the NAP. You would not be able to behave like that and live amongst others.

 

[Suburban Jedi]

Many of you believe that government is good; or that it's necessary to protect what is good; or that it is required for some greater good of society. But, what does good mean to you? If we are going to debate these subjects, it's important to know what each other means.

To you...what is good precisely? What is evil? What differentiates right from wrong? For the more critical thinkers, what exactly is your moral philosophy?

"Good"can be relative. For example, that grizzly catching a salmon is doing "good"for himself, but not so much for the salmon.

In general, I generally use the concept of eudaimonia, but utilizing Anscombe's reworking of this ancient Aristotelian idea as "maximal human flourishing". But of course, we also have to recognize on this little lonely planet, what might be good for humans, isn't necessarily good for the other creatures with whom we share this planet

 

[Thoreau72]

I think "good" in this context is constitutional governance, with much emphasis on the spirit of those goals mentioned in the Preamble.

 

[Mary Dunsmore]

Simple, good is the opposite to bad. Strange question really !

 

[Quag]

I blame beer.

You cant blame beer! Beer is not the problem beer is the solution

 

[Xelor]

Many of you believe that government is good; or that it's necessary to protect what is good; or that it is required for some greater good of society. But, what does good mean to you? If we are going to debate these subjects, it's important to know what each other means.

To you...what is good precisely? What is evil? What differentiates right from wrong? For the more critical thinkers, what exactly is your moral philosophy?

It is for the heart to suggest our problems; it is for the intellect to solve them.​

-- Auguste Comte, A General View of Positivism​

A central question throughout human history has been: What is actually desirable and/or good? The hedonist response would probably be "pleasure;" the pragmatist would be "solving the problem;" and Kantian, something along the line of "a good will." The constellation of answers before us belies the concept of value's central role amidst the conflict among social, environmental and economic perspectives. Given the dominance of pecuniary considerations in the contemporary world, the logical beginning for a critical analysis is in the nexus of moral philosophy and the tenets of economic value theory.

Per value theory, there are four genres of "good":

• Axiological good (the abstract goodness of measurable things)
• Good Simpliciter
• "Good for" (social welfare good)
• Qualified/adjectival good

Good, being variously discrete and gamutous, as one can see, simply isn't briefly describable. So this is where I shall stop for the rubric is far broader than I'd take on, save for a thesis or dissertation presenting a wholly new philosophical schema of what be good. Accordingly, I suggest you:

1. Read "Blackwell,"
2. Read Hobbes, Bentham, Smith, Foucault, Malthus, Ricardo
3. Use the information you obtain there as a framework to hone for yourself a multidisciplinary yet coherent set of insights that reconcile value theory with pragmatic socialand environmental considerations of what is/isn't good and live by the principles you thereby develop, and
4. Dispense with your concern for what others, most especially others on the Internet whom you are unlikely to know well enough to hold them accountable to their paradigm of what good is and isn't, construe as good/not-good.

In any case we make both a folklore and a science of our brutish origins, sometimes with precious little to distinguish between them.
-- Marshall D. Sahlins, The use and abuse of Biology: An Anthropological Critique of Sociobiology
​

 

[ecofarm]

You cant blame beer! Beer is not the problem beer is the solution

It kinda depends on when. It's important to know what phase one is in. 20s, solves problems. 30s, those problems might be noticed. 40s, those problems are real. 50s, still acting like a college kid. 60s, pissed life away.

And anytime someone finds themselves in a loveless child rearing as a career scenario... alcohol.

 

[Anarchon]

It is for the heart to suggest our problems; it is for the intellect to solve them.​

-- Auguste Comte, A General View of Positivism​

A central question throughout human history has been: What is actually desirable and/or good? The hedonist response would probably be "pleasure;" the pragmatist would be "solving the problem;" and Kantian, something along the line of "a good will." The constellation of answers before us belies the concept of value's central role amidst the conflict among social, environmental and economic perspectives. Given the dominance of pecuniary considerations in the contemporary world, the logical beginning for a critical analysis is in the nexus of moral philosophy and the tenets of economic value theory.

Per value theory, there are four genres of "good":

• Axiological good (the abstract goodness of measurable things)
• Good Simpliciter
• "Good for" (social welfare good)
• Qualified/adjectival good

Good, being variously discrete and gamutous, as one can see, simply isn't briefly describable. So this is where I shall stop for the rubric is far broader than I'd take on, save for a thesis or dissertation presenting a wholly new philosophical schema of what be good. Accordingly, I suggest you:

1. Read "Blackwell,"
2. Read Hobbes, Bentham, Smith, Foucault, Malthus, Ricardo
3. Use the information you obtain there as a framework to hone for yourself a multidisciplinary yet coherent set of insights that reconcile value theory with pragmatic socialand environmental considerations of what is/isn't good and live by the principles you thereby develop, and
4. Dispense with your concern for what others, most especially others on the Internet whom you are unlikely to know well enough to hold them accountable to their paradigm of what good is and isn't, construe as good/not-good.

In any case we make both a folklore and a science of our brutish origins, sometimes with precious little to distinguish between them.
-- Marshall D. Sahlins, The use and abuse of Biology: An Anthropological Critique of Sociobiology
​

While you're correct in pointing out that there are different connotations of the word "good," I think I was clear in the OP that I was referring to morality, not how good the turkey was on Thanksgiving. No one need read 7 books to participate here.

 

[Anarchon]

Simple, good is the opposite to bad. Strange question really !

Hehe. But, I asked what differentiates the two. That's a bit more challenging to answer.

 

[Xelor]

While you're correct in pointing out that there are different connotations of the word "good," I think I was clear in the OP that I was referring to morality, not how good the turkey was on Thanksgiving. No one need read 7 books to participate here.

If all you want is a moral depiction, at least a coherent and logically defensible one, Blackwell is the only book there one need read.

 

[Anarchon]

Bad is that which is harmful, good is that which prevents or alleviates harm. Government is "good" because good government prevents and alleviates harm.

You're saying that governments aren't harmful. This simply isn't true. In fact, they may be the most harmful entity in existence, especially to their own people. Research democide if you care to differ.

 

[Quag]

It kinda depends on when. It's important to know what phase one is in. 20s, solves problems. 30s, those problems might be noticed. 40s, those problems are real. 50s, still acting like a college kid. 60s, pissed life away.

And anytime someone finds themselves in a loveless child rearing as a career scenario... alcohol.

Not all alcohol is beer and not all beer is deserving of the name

 

[Anarchon]

If all you want is a moral depiction, at least a coherent and logically defensible one, Blackwell is the only book there one need read.

Instead of requiring that everyone here read a book, could you provide the thesis for us? Or, even better, you could give us your thoughts...original or adopted.

 

[ecofarm]

Not all alcohol is beer and not all beer is deserving of the name

I'm a wheat or pale ale (not India) myself. The less fruit flavor the better. I'm pretty sure I'm past the age of it causing that sort of trouble.

 

[Xelor]

While you're correct in pointing out that there are different connotations of the word "good," I think I was clear in the OP that I was referring to morality, not how good the turkey was on Thanksgiving. No one need read 7 books to participate here.

Fine...For me, good is how I describe any behavior that shifts my total utility "up and to the right." On a societal level, it's any behavior that shifts the society's total utility "up and to the right." Anything that accomplishes that outcome is good.

 

[Xelor]

Instead of requiring that everyone here read a book, could you provide the thesis for us? Or, even better, you could give us your thoughts...original or adopted.

I'm not about to write a thesis for anyone here. I presented my notion of it as succinctly and objectively as possible in post 49.