What is The Good?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: What is The Good?

Postby Erik_ » Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:31 pm

God, Yahweh, the Father of Jesus, is the good.

People think, mistakingly, that good and evil do not exist, because they can't examine them empirically, as in looking inside of a box and discovering them. But there are objective things about reality that are not merely physical.

Yes, some values are subjective, like one's preference for vanilla ice-cream over chocolate, but then there are spiritual values that are objective, because God is the standard of what is good; He is the good.

For those who don't believe that good and evil are objective, or that they are mere human constructs, just imaginations, I dare you to witness first hand the barbarities of war and child sex trafficking, and then reaffirm your stance that morality is a mere human contrivance.

It's easy to say good and evil, as objective values, don't exist, while you are sipping on your latte macchiato and reading Nietzsche in front of the fire place. It's a whole different ball game when you actually have first hand experience to the spiritual reality of good and evil.

Am I appealing to emotion? Pavlovian responses?

Yes and no. I am appealing to emotion, as emotion is a form of intelligence. But, no, this is not pavlovian conditioning; this is a fundamental part of who we are and a fundamental aspect of reality itself.

For those interested in the Truth, check out my thread on True Christianity. And let go of all of your negative impressions of Christianity. Look at Jesus himself, not at how he has been misrepresented by supposed followers throughout the past and today. Seek him in prayer, heart-felt prayer. Jesus bless you all.
Erik_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2359
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:27 pm
Location: Kingdom

Re: What is The Good?

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:46 pm

If the things you mention were objectively evil (or more relevantly, objectively not-Good), then do you think people would still be capable of wanting to do these things?

I can say it is clearly objectively evil to draw foie gras from a live birds innards, just as you can say it is objectively evil to traffic children for sex. But this doesn't help us prevent it, as it is only an opinion, and opinions aren't workable.

To do the work of your god, it seems you would have to be effective in having people comply with your standards. You would have to exert force, might, even if it may be a spiritual force.

This is the reason Dante was commissioned (I suppose) to create a really scary notion of hell.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6994
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: What is The Good?

Postby James S Saint » Tue Aug 01, 2017 6:09 pm

As soon as "good" or "evil" are defined, things automatically, objectively fall into those categories. Since all words have at least one inherent definition assigned by the user, the only way to avoid objective good and evil is to never allow those words to be used.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25798
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: What is The Good?

Postby The Eternal Warrior » Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:13 pm

James S Saint wrote:As soon as "good" or "evil" are defined, things automatically, objectively fall into those categories. Since all words have at least one inherent definition assigned by the user, the only way to avoid objective good and evil is to never allow those words to be used.


C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-COMBO-BREAKER!!!!!!!

User avatar
The Eternal Warrior
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2440
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: What is The Good?

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:01 pm

Back to philosophy:

The Good as a notion must be derived from the capacity to value.

Not simply in the sense that the judgment of what is Good is a valuation, but much further down the line of investigation into phenomenology - we must state that the Good is the capacity to evaluate and praise existence as good.

The good is that which establishes "good" vs "bad" as a measure of relative existence-to-itself. Good is what can endure itself with open eyes, bad is that which must make sure its own eyes, as well as those of the rest of the world, are closed.

Eyes, or nostrils.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6994
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: What is The Good?

Postby A Shieldmaiden » Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:44 am

Is there a connection between morality and one's psychological state of good health?

Plato and Aristotle, said that there is a close relationship between moral goodness and a healthy mind. Health, beauty and well being are connected to virtue and those who are immoral will be unfulfilled and physically unwell. Immanuel Kant said one should be guided by the universal moral law coupled with the capacity to reason and a good character, which basically means you are a 'good and moral person to begin with'. Are these opinions too austere, with no room for erring on the 'wrong' side of the law, whether it be man's or God's? If faced with the dilemma of how to treat others we undoubtedly would turn to ethics when questioned on how to deal with a situation, but when it comes to treating ourselves what do we do. If we are individuals we have to decide for ourselves. Who can decide for you, if you can't decide for yourself. How many people do you know that you would trust to do this? I know of none. I am convinced there are far too many who really do not know how to treat themselves kindly. The old saying, do what you want, but do not hurt others. Which of the two is moral philosophy? It surely cannot be bad if our wants are not a factor in what is good. I assume there is goodness in humanity but this goodness is becoming increasingly more difficult to be found.

It seems to me we may all have different perceptions of "what is the good" and if this is so, the question therefore, is unanswerable to everyone's satisfaction.
The man that walks his own road, walks alone

Old Norse Proverb
User avatar
A Shieldmaiden
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:13 am

Re: What is The Good?

Postby UrGod » Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:25 am

Fixed Cross wrote:Back to philosophy:

The Good as a notion must be derived from the capacity to value.

Not simply in the sense that the judgment of what is Good is a valuation, but much further down the line of investigation into phenomenology - we must state that the Good is the capacity to evaluate and praise existence as good.

The good is that which establishes "good" vs "bad" as a measure of relative existence-to-itself. Good is what can endure itself with open eyes, bad is that which must make sure its own eyes, as well as those of the rest of the world, are closed.

Eyes, or nostrils.



This is very interesting, because I was just thinking along very similar lines recently. I believe the question of morality and the good is difficult because we tend to want morality/the good to be one thing, a kind of monolith, when in reality there are different goods and different moralities. Different both in scope and in kind.

And there is no way to reduce those different goods/moralities into a single all-encompassing, universal moral theory; unless your universal theory includes these differences as such, as they are, and accounts for and explains them. So a sufficiently universal moral theory would actually be post-moral, because it could not afford to fall into only one camp of goods/moral modes. But it would certainly not be anti-moral, immoral, or amoral... simply "post-moral" in the literal sense that it exists sequentially after moralities. And perhaps there is a good, a morality that corresponds to this post-moral universal theoretical knowledge, but so far we are unable to know what that "universal good/morality" might be, or even if it exists, because we have not yet surveyed the vast landscape of the different goods and moralities, we have not yet forged that perspective into a truly universal understanding of not only what is morality and the good but also what are the moralities and the goods, and how and why, and how and why do they relate to one another. I am currently working on this task.

(And for me at least, I cannot say that self-valuing is the final universal moral good that is truly post-moral, because for me self-valuing is both pre-moral and moral-coextensive. Self-valuing is there at the beginning before any goods or moralities exist, and it is there also alongside every good and every morality, and likely it is also there alongside every post-morality; but as a logical consequence of its necessity in this manner, it cannot also be identical with that which occupies the most "post-moral" position, unless we can explain how necessity and sufficiency are identical in this case.... or unless self-valuing is the singular quantum base unit in a vast pyramidal hierarchy of existence wherein the different goods and moralities converge upward continuum-like until they reach the peak of true universality and post-morality in the way I describe in this post, in which case the final product of this process is no other than the very quantum base-unit of the very same process. This is a really interesting idea to think about. I am not convinced it is the case, yet, but I will give it more thought. )

When you say it is Good that establishes "good vs bad" as a measure of relative existence to itself, I agree, but I would phrase this slightly differently: I would say it is (a) morality that establishes "good vs bad" in this way and I say this because what I mean by 'morality' here is not a single, monolithic concept but rather one aspect of the total vantage of what we might consider morality to mean, namely in this case that aspect which structures and organizes beings into relations enduring over time and fundamentally ordering. You can think of a society like this: a society is a huge system that structures beings (people, things, nature, ideas, etc.) into more or less stable relations, but it does this in such a way that those beings which are thusly structured are in fact also producing the society which structures them. So you have reciprocality here, the logic of the vicious circle: society is structured by that which it structures. This is a moral truth, because "good vs bad" becomes possible in a whole new way and scale upon the ground of this social structuring thing.

Individual vs society is a more basic fact and problem than is good vs bad, in other words. The highest Good is simply the highest existence, and what it took to get there, which includes necessarily an entire host of 'moral' facts and problems that had to be understood and comprehended ("overcome", assimilated into oneself and as oneself).
I am your master.

“It’s half past fuck it with the caps lock on.”
-Bloodhound Gang
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: What is The Good?

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:59 pm

Your thinking here with the sv logic produces the same sort of outline that I use, which I keep arriving at, which is this double ended situation where sv itself prescribes what down the line becomes the capacity for moral judgment, and in the end through the road of conflict and growth and growing conflict and building tensions and polarities, it gets so finely saturated with all sorts of contradictions that a universal type of "ratio" (measure) can be discerned, which would then become an overarching code. Not as a law, but as an indicator.

We can tie this in in interesting ways with your observations on BTL about WtP excess.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6994
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users