Is there a good?

[seeker]

MadArchitect,

Thanks for the clarifications. My answer to your original question, "Is there a Good?" will have to be I don't think so. I think that, while the impulse to be "good" has evolutionary roots, the concepts of good and bad are products of the human mind, and their definitions must come from there as well.

Dissident Heart,

I believe this idea of creative force/energy and interdependence could be another fruitful discussion. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

[MadArchitect]

I think that, while the impulse to be "good" has evolutionary roots, the concepts of good and bad are products of the human mind, and their definitions must come from there as well.

Well, while we're on the topic, let me ask a follow up question. Given that you believe there to be an impulse to be "good", how would you describe that impulse?

Off the top of my head, I can see a couple of different ways to interpret that, and I'm curious as to which, if any, correspond to what you think to be the case.

Would you say it's an impulse to behave in certain ways, which we've called good after the fact? If so, why do we bother to make that sort of judgement or justification? In other words, if it's just our nature to act in certain ways, why did we ever bother with calling them "good"?

Or would you say that we hardwired to behave in accordance with some notion of good, that notion being somewhat malleable and subjective? I see this as a kind of biological imperative that can be expressed "do x", but which is incomplete without another imperative expressed "determine x." If something like that is what you had in mind, then I suppose the next question is, does that form of moral imperative differ from any practical imperative?

Or did you have something altogether different in mind?

[seeker]

I think the impulse to be "good," has both cultural and instinctual components. The instinctual part, I think, is composed of a protective instinct (which includes the maternal instinct), an altruistic instinct (we get good feelings from making someone else happy), a need for social approval, and a desire to belong; maybe other drives also play a part. I see evidence for this kind of impulse everywhere in the common kindnesses people take for granted as well as heroic acts to save other people's lives. All of these have (or once had) survival value for our genes (or for the individual or for the group, depending on who you listen to). That's the only agenda we are hardwired for to my knowledge. Since instinctual drives speak to us through emotions, these drives are all expressed via positive feelings and negative feelings. The imperative doesn't say "do x;" doing x just feels right to us.

What behaviors or other phenomena prompted a concept named "good?" That word is used to describe feelings, to praise people for some kind of success, to describe activities or objects that give rise to positive feelings (e.g., a good book), and, of course, to communicate about "ought to" rules of behavior. There are probably other uses I'm not thinking of right now.

The reason we discuss ethics goes principally, I believe, to the cultural component of the desire to be good. If we accept that people want social approval and want to be accepted by their groups, then we have the motivation but not the direction. That comes from culturally-defined norms. Altruistic impulses are also an opportunity for cultural influence. It seems quite reasonable to me that some people have stronger positive drives than others. It also seems reasonable that whatever degree of emotional force these propensities have, they can either be nurtured or damaged by social forces. They can be targeted to serve a family, a clan, a nation, a religion, the human race, etc.

But, if we don't want to conform the norms laid down by our group (whichever one it is), we do have the ability to forgo the social carrots and accept the sticks (and likewise, the genetic ones). That necessitates thinking about what good we want to serve. I see no way to avoid making a choice. I don't think we can find or discover the real meaning of the word. I think we have to create its meaning for ourselves.

[MadArchitect]

The instinctual part, I think, is composed of a protective instinct (which includes the maternal instinct), an altruistic instinct (we get good feelings from making someone else happy), a need for social approval, and a desire to belong; maybe other drives also play a part.

My resistence to taking those as evidence of any particular disposition towards looking for some "good" is that there seems to be an equally prominant set of instincts to the contrary: we have aggressive instincts, selfish instincts, anti-social tendencies, a desire to dominate. I certainly doesn't look to me as though the "moral" instincts are more prominant or more frequently expressed than the supposedly immoral ones. And it may be that the immoral ones have also had a survival value -- in the case of the selfish instincts, it's pretty easy to see how they might -- so I'm not at all convinced that evolution tends to favor moral bahavior. If nothing else, you can look at the preponderance of violent crimes that take place in human society. I personally have been the victim of three major thefts in the past 5 years -- one at gunpoint -- and I'd say that relatively well-insulated against the sort of violence and exploitation that strikes most people.

Since instinctual drives speak to us through emotions, these drives are all expressed via positive feelings and negative feelings. The imperative doesn't say "do x;" doing x just feels right to us.

Even if our only objective is to pass on our genes, I'm not sure human emotion is a reliable guide to the most beneficial instincts. After all, heroin abuse has been said to push humans to the limit of "positive feelings", but it's hardly an efficacious way to ensure the furtherence of a genetic line.

The reason we discuss ethics goes principally, I believe, to the cultural component of the desire to be good. If we accept that people want social approval and want to be accepted by their groups, then we have the motivation but not the direction.

There are pretty obvious objections to the explanation that we try to be ethical in order to attain social acceptence -- mostly the argument that there are plenty of people who strive for ethical status in societies that oppose their ethics. Take Schindler, for example, saving Jews in a society that gave him every advantage and praise so long as he appeared to be in support of the Holocaust. There could, I suppose, be some form of social differential involved -- seeking acceptance to one group rather than another -- but I'm not sure that makes much sense when siding with the minorty group comes as the explicit cost of one's survival. Take martyrdom, for example. If seeking social behavior is a behavioral disposition evolved in order to ensure proliferation, it doesn't make much sense to align one's self with a viciously persecuted group -- the desire to do so would seem to indicate some form of biological misstep in that it seriously jeopardizes one's genetic viability. So why are these people putting themselves and their genetic lineage at risk, when it would be more profitable and just as easy to side with the majority?

[seeker]

MadArchitect said:

"My resistence to taking those as evidence of any particular disposition towards looking for some "good" is that there seems to be an equally prominant set of instincts to the contrary: we have aggressive instincts, selfish instincts, anti-social tendencies, a desire to dominate."

Yes, of course there are contrary instincts, including aggression, the drive to dominance, fear, fight or flight, etc. I'm not asserting that the instincts underlying the desire to do good are our strongest ones, only that they do exist. All of these instincts have been necessary or useful in the past. Each of them may be dominant in some specific set of circumstances. And the strength of each varies with genetic heritage. I think the maternal instinct is stronger in women, while the drive to dominance is stronger in men. The sexual drive is probably stronger in men while the mating drive is stronger in women. And drive strength varies with the aging process: babies have a strong imprinting instinct; young men usually have stronger aggressive instincts than older ones; teenagers have strong bonding and peer approval instincts; etc.

MadArchitect said:

"I certainly doesn't look to me as though the "moral" instincts are more prominent or more frequently expressed than the supposedly immoral ones. And it may be that the immoral ones have also had a survival value -- in the case of the selfish instincts, it's pretty easy to see how they might -- so I'm not at all convinced that evolution tends to favor moral behavior."

Nor does it to me. They are very primitive tools developed for survival, and, as you point out, we probably still need all of them in some circumstances. I'm not sure it is useful to think of instincts in terms like moral or selfish, nor do I think nature favors moral behavior in general. I think nature favors some behaviors that we have labeled "moral" under some circumstances--such as rearing our young and protecting our families.

MadArchitect said:

"If nothing else, you can look at the preponderance of violent crimes that take place in human society. I personally have been the victim of three major thefts in the past 5 years -- one at gunpoint -- and I'd say that relatively well-insulated against the sort of violence and exploitation that strikes most people."

Absolutely. The aggressive instinct is very dangerous in our crowded urban life style. Civilization has outpaced evolution and some of our primitive tools may be more harmful than helpful. On dark days I wonder if the drive for dominance isn't the only one that matters to our fate as a species.

MadArchitect said:

"Even if our only objective is to pass on our genes, I'm not sure human emotion is a reliable guide to the most beneficial instincts. After all, heroin abuse has been said to push humans to the limit of "positive feelings", but it's hardly an efficacious way to ensure the furtherance of a genetic line."

I would be the last person to suggest that we just "follow our instincts." It's too easy to fool mother nature. Our cultures have developed lots of ways to push and pull our instinctive buttons. On the other hand, we can't just wish our negative feelings away, nor would we always want to. And I think we have to recognize them in order to find intelligent ways to appease and control them.

MadArchitect said:

"There are pretty obvious objections to the explanation that we try to be ethical in order to attain social acceptence -- mostly the argument that there are plenty of people who strive for ethical status in societies that oppose their ethics."

I think our generalized desire to do good emerges from a number of components, one of which is the need for approval. Some of the other components are undoubtedly rational. Human being are constantly rationalizing and generalizing their instincts. The desire to "be good" per se probably emerges only in rational animals. Our protective, bonding, curiosity, altruistic and other drives may prompt us to do some "good" things (depending on your definition of good, of course), but the idea of being good in a general sense is a rational one. However, the seed of the idea and motivation (i.e. the feelings) that we use to power the idea are given to us by our instincts.

[Dissident Heart]

MA: it does seem to me that love could be construed to fit the first criteria I suggested. If a person might be expected to sacrafice their very life in the service of something they love, then that love certainly has some claim as a final cause.

I think this is partially correct, only because I am not certain regarding the finality of love: i.e., there is something, it seems, continuously moving, evolving, and transforming about the process. Love is not a final cause but a transformative force...if I needed to point to a final cause, I would point to the term Shalom. The goal is Shalom. The purpose is Shalom. The why and wherefore and who cares, is Shalom. Love is what motivates the process; Justice is what fortifies and protects its results; but Shalom is the goal. The good is Shalom.

Shalom is a greeting for peace and wellbeing, as well as the hope for wellness and health upon departure. It is more than simply peace, which is no small thing, in that it works to encompass the whole of one's relationships: with God, Self, Neighbor and Creation...it speaks to the integrity of Creation when relationships are in right order, justice reigns, and love is an active, transformative, healing force.

MA: As for Buber, it seems to me that the portions of "I and Thou" that deal with the "love thy neighbor as thyself" dictum are introduced primarily to explore the threads that connect Buber's Judaic-rooted exploration to similar traditions in Christianity; recognizing the connection may be useful, but it's probably going too far to assume that the Christian principle is foremost in Buber's work.

I agree that appropriating Buber into the Christian fold is going too far. But that isn't at all necessary, considering "love of neighbor as thyself" is a deeply Judaic notion...something that Jesus referred to as the key link to understanding torah and the prophets. Thus, highlighting "love of neighbor" in relation to Buber's "I and Thou" is not about finding important connections with Christianity (although I think this is a very positive by-product) but is a recognition of Buber's reliance upon and commitment to a particular theological and religious tradition throughout his work. There is obviously much more to be said about this...and I think reading I and Thou would be a great idea.

seeker: I believe this idea of creative force/energy and interdependence could be another fruitful discussion.

Great, and have I said welcome to the community yet? I think the emphasis upon force/energy and interdependence creates a real challenge if we are committed to identifying final causes or single agency. Mad had pointed this out already in our discussion. I'm interested to see what demands it makes upon our moral ideas and practices.

[seeker]

Dissident Heart,

Thank you for the welcome. I am happy to have found this community. When you point to shalom, or peace and well-being, are you speaking of a personal final goal, or a societal one?

[Dissident Heart]

seeker: When you point to shalom, or peace and well-being, are you speaking of a personal final goal, or a societal one?

That's another good question. Shalom, as I interpret it, is not about isolated individuals attaining some form of self-perfection or personal enlightenment...even though self-knowledge and transformation are integral components. Shalom is about relationship: with God, self, kin, neighbor, stranger, enemy, all of creation...so, essentially, it is not personal vs. social, but personal and social: there is no social shalom without personal shalom; Shalom is persons in right social relationship.

[seeker]

Dissident Heart,

Thanks for your reply. In that case, I would have to say that peace and wellbeing (Shalom) is the highest Good that I can conceive of for the human race (and for me as a person). I don't get there the same way you do, as I appeal only to my own reason and learning, but your words are better than mine, so I will feel free to adopt them.

[venusunderfire]

"We persue [the good you've named] in order to achieve ________."

I think humans (like all complex, social creatures) are inherently filled with intentions, so to pursue anything (behavior, ideal, state of being) is to achieve something, to gain something by it. And if we did not imagine an intention or benefit initially, we usually get around to it later (i.e. justification).

Is there such a thing as The Good? My feeling is, no. And I am one of those people where the question rarely enters my mind and it holds little value for me to ask.

The only thing, I think, that humans are truly compelled to do (without a predisposed motive?) is exist and participate with the universe, of which we are only a small part. I don't see that we have any choice in the matter for we cannot close our eyes, ears, noses, skin, and minds to the world until we are dead.

Does living achieve anything? Do we gain or benefit anything by it? Does someone else gain; family, society, biology, a Great Cosmic Voyeur? Is there some ultimate goal we achieve as a participant in existence?

I think the answer to whether or not (or why) there is The Good would be as difficult and fraught with doubt as the search for Purpose. It is highly individual, subjective, and subject to change. Tip of the hat to those who find it.



-- venus.