Is there a good?

[MadArchitect]

Branching off from the discussion in "Animal Morality and Human Need", I thought I'd ask everyone's opinion on a question germaine to the whole question of morality: Is there any such thing as the good?

Before you answer, let me put the question in context. What Socrates and Plato brought to moral philosophy is partly the idea that morality is behavior in the practice of a particular goal, the good. Rather than saying that we behave morally in order to profit personally, or to construct a pleasant society, or for fear of reprisal, they argued that the best reason to be moral was that there was a "thing" called the good, and that it was, in itself, worth achieving.

Now the good need not be some supernatural state, as you might interpret Plato's ideal of The Good. It need not be anything empirical. It can be just an idea in the plain old sense of something that we think up. For the purpose of this discussion, let's suppose that the criteria for calling something the good (rather than any particular, garden variety good) is that it is its own end, not a means to some other end.

If you're not sure whether some supposed version of the good meets that criteria, try to fill in the blank in this sentence: "We persue [the good you've named] in order to achieve ________." If you can provide a reasonable answer for that blank, then your good probably fails the criteria. If the sentence might as easily be false as true, then the good you've named still stands a fighting chance. If you can't think of any word that would fit into that blank, then it's a strong possibility you've lit upon the good.

For the purposes of this thread, however, I'm not asking what, if anything, you thing is the good. I'm just asking whether or not you think there is a good. From there, we can talk about what it might be, or how we might go about finding that out.

[seeker]

Are we looking for a personal "Good," a human "Good," or a universal "Good?"

If we are looking for a personal Good, I would nominate tranquility, grace, mindfulness, or some synonym for that state of bliss I recognize but can't find a precise word for.

If it's a Good for the species, how about rationality?

A Good for the universe? Evolution maybe?

Interesting to hear others' ideas.

[Mr. P]

But by achieving the good, does that not make the good a means to being or feeling good? So it fails your test.

Good is what humans define...and it there were no goal to achieving good, why bother?

Mr. P.

[Dissident Heart]

In Genesis, Elohim transforms the dark, formless, watery abyss of Tehom into a voluptuous living Creation in six days; and at the end of it all Elohim decrees it to be good, very good. It seems good is the transformation of lifeless, inanimate forms into dynamic, fertile reproductivity: from arid abyss to fecund creation.

Unlike Plato's determination to direct moral behavior upwards to heavenliesque ideals; Genesis plants what is good firmly in the dirt and mud of earthly life.

Still, I have a hard time saying "That is good..." without a rejoinder, "...for what?" Good for what? He's a good man: good for what? That's a good wine: good for what?

[MadArchitect]

Hey, Seeker! Thanks for addressing my question.

Are we looking for a personal "Good," a human "Good," or a universal "Good?"

Well given, the terms that I provided, I think we can count out a personal good -- at least, if we mean the same thing by that. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but it would seem to me that a personal good would almost always imply some other end -- your own satisfaction, maybe, some personal agenda, or as the utilitarians would have it, pleasure. Plato seems to have argued that achieving the good would produce some sort of pleasure, and that it was a better kind of pleasure than immoral pleasures, but we also presents it as something of a side-effect of moral behavior, rather than the goal.

I won't count out the possibility of an ultimate good, but that's probably a little beyond our scope at the moment. So for the sake of scale, let's stick with "human good", but I want to be specific about that. By human good, I don't mean what is necessarily good for humans, either individually or as a species; rather, I simply mean the good on a scale that humans are capable of knowing, assuming (as I routinely do) that our limitations as perceiving, thinking beings prevent us from fully knowing a lot of things that exist on a larger scale (infinity, for example, or nature).

If it's a Good for the species, how about rationality?

I'd say that one runs into trouble with the test I outlined above. I can imagine being rational in order to settle an argument, or in order to figure out the best way to perform a given task or solve a particular problem. But I can't imagine being rational just for the sake of being rational.

But by achieving the good, does that not make the good a means to being or feeling good? So it fails your test.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of instances in which doing what we take to be the good causes the actor pain, deprives them of a particular pleasure, even kills them. Total self-sacrifice, as in the case of, say, some of the firefighters killed in the collapse of the World Trade Center, negates even the idea that we do good for the self-satisfaction that arises from sticking to a principle. Maybe it's difficult to do something primarily for the good it causes rather than for selfish motives; maybe it's rare that anyone actually does. But I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility.

Good is what humans define...and it there were no goal to achieving good, why bother?

Well, then, for you, an alternative question. Is there some consistent and widespread goal that can be taken as the principle in reference to which we define the good? And if so, why do we persue that goal?

It seems good is the transformation of lifeless, inanimate forms into dynamic, fertile reproductivity: from arid abyss to fecund creation.

"Seems?" So Genesis has settled the question for us, and now we're just commenting on that answer?

Unlike Plato's determination to direct moral behavior upwards to heavenliesque ideals; Genesis plants what is good firmly in the dirt and mud of earthly life.

...by having the occupants of heaven spell out what's good for us. Yeah, real earth-bound common sense paradigm you got going there. It doesn't really look to me as though shifting the emphasis towards the Bible removes us from the tendency to look for our ideals in some abstract heavenly sphere.

[Mr. P]

But by achieving the good, does that not make the good a means to being or feeling good? So it fails your test.

Total self-sacrifice, as in the case of, say, some of the firefighters killed in the collapse of the World Trade Center, negates even the idea that we do good for the self-satisfaction that arises from sticking to a principle.

Taking this example, the firefighters did/do what they did/do becuase they had a calling to do good. They felt good at the end of the day from performing their deeds and that kept them going. Also...look at how respected and remembered they are to this day. For those that believe in ANYTHING after this life or the value of being remembered, it seems like this indeed had a benefit for them and their familes. I never said, btw, that the total good repurcussions from an action had to go to the actor...but I am sure all the guys who died in that tragedy would be proud of what they did.

Of course I am not saying that ALL these guys would feel the same about posterity and an after-life...but going by percentages, I would think it would be a lot of them.

Good is what humans define...and it there were no goal to achieving good, why bother?

Well, then, for you, an alternative question. Is there some consistent and widespread goal that can be taken as the principle in reference to which we define the good? And if so, why do we persue that goal?

Good is what makes us feel good (or else it would be bad yes?)...whether it is the happy pleasure of trinkets, good food, friendship or the pain that comes with knowing that we did what society defeines as good (and as we ourselves agree with) even though it caused us some pain (the big picture). We all have individual thoughts on what is good (you really cannot get around that since we are individuals), but a good many things can be extrapolated out from the fact that humans are all basically the same. A common denominator of what is good can be found if you will. And that is where our laws, moral codes and all come from. There is no one single thing anyone can ever point to...except the one that concerns us right here and now: Our continued existence, together, as a Civilization.

Can YOU point to an ultimate good that is not based on any moral definitions that we have created?

Mr. P.

[Mr. P]

But by achieving the good, does that not make the good a means to being or feeling good? So it fails your test.

[Total self-sacrifice, as in the case of, say, some of the firefighters killed in the collapse of the World Trade Center, negates even the idea that we do good for the self-satisfaction that arises from sticking to a principle.

Taking this example, the firefighters did/do what they did/do becuase they had a calling to do good. They felt good at the end of the day from performing their deeds and that kept them going. Also...look at how respected and remembered they are to this day. For those that believe in ANYTHING after this life or the value of being remembered, it seems like this indeed had a benefit for them and their familes. I never said, btw, that the total good repurcussions from an action had to go to the actor...but I am sure all the guys who died in that tragedy would be proud of what they did.

Of course I am not saying that ALL these guys would feel the same about posterity and an after-life...but going by percentages, I would think it would be a lot of them.

Good is what humans define...and it there were no goal to achieving good, why bother?

Well, then, for you, an alternative question. Is there some consistent and widespread goal that can be taken as the principle in reference to which we define the good? And if so, why do we persue that goal?

Good is what makes us feel good (or else it would be bad yes?)...whether it is the happy pleasure of trinkets, good food, friendship or the pain that comes with knowing that we did what society defeines as good (and as we ourselves agree with) even though it caused us some pain (the big picture). We all have individual thoughts on what is good (you really cannot get around that since we are individuals), but a good many things can be extrapolated out from the fact that humans are all basically the same. A common denominator of what is good can be found if you will. And that is where our laws, moral codes and all come from. There is no one single thing anyone can ever point to...except the one that concerns us right here and now: Our continued existence, together, as a Civilization.

Can YOU point to an ultimate good that is not based on any moral definitions that we have created?

Mr. P.

[Dissident Heart]

MA: "Seems?" So Genesis has settled the question for us, and now we're just commenting on that answer?

Genesis is hardly an irrelevant component to the discussion. Why people use the word good in the first place in many ways part of a Biblical legacy. Does this mean it is settled? Of course not. I think it does point out an inescapable challenge for all of us: we are using borrowed language. To begin discussing what we mean by good by engaging one of the primary sources of the meaning of the term seems sensible to me. And, since a great deal of what the term means to me is rooted in Biblical legacy, it's a good place to start.

MA: ...by having the occupants of heaven spell out what's good for us. Yeah, real earth-bound common sense paradigm you got going there. It doesn't really look to me as though shifting the emphasis towards the Bible removes us from the tendency to look for our ideals in some abstract heavenly sphere.

On the one hand, I agree. I don't think any of us (whether we start in Athens or Jerusalem) can escape reliance upon some transcendental source when determining what is good. If we choose to look, we are always going to find a deeper, or higher, stratum of authority to legitimize our moral codes. We draw our lines and say, "here and no further"...but, if we are honest, we know how much further there is to go, but choose to stop nonetheless. Your questioning in this thread is an attempt to understand our choices for where we have drawn our lines.

On the other hand, I think the distinction between Athens pointing upward and Jersualem in the soil is more important than you say. It's one thing to have a transcendent force demanding an upward release from the bondage of earthly imperfection; and one imparting unconditional value in the care and celebration of earthly creation. Again, I don't see how any of us can escape including some kind of heaven in our moral equations.

By some kind of heaven , I mean some unconditional force that we submit to: and in return, we flourish...or we hope to at least. By unconditional force I mean a power to which we turn in hopes of alleviating our misery, transcending our limitations, and achieve (truly) our dreams. This power extends a mandate with a promise: behave thusly and thrive, or conversely, perish. The good is the source of this mandate and promise.

[Mr. P]

And, since a great deal of what the term means to me is rooted in Biblical legacy, it's a good place to start.

This is your only valid point as I see it. The term good and what we are discussing here far anti-dates the bible. Mad brought up the Greek culture in regard to this. The Bible and Genesis is a baby compared to this. To call the bible a "primary source" regarding this matter is a bit naive.

I don't think any of us (whether we start in Athens or Jerusalem) can escape reliance upon some transcendental source when determining what is good.

Uhm...yes, some of us can and do.

If we choose to look, we are always going to find a deeper, or higher, stratum of authority to legitimize our moral codes.

No. Only those who cannot cope with the fact that we make our own rules that those rules really do not NEED to be based on anything but the fact that we are trying to find the best way to live together need something more than the human condition to appeal to for guidance or authority. God (read Higher authority, et al) does not tell me to be good, I fear no god or any trascendential being or factor when I decide to be good as defined by me first and then the society in which I live. As a matter of fact, I find much to be desired in any religious system of morality, what with the history of fear and hatred of others who choose to simply live differently from the dictates of religious basis of morality.

I can be good without appealing to any higher power, unless you consider the benefit of the species a higher power...but if that is the case, then we are just in a semantics game again. This makes my morality malleable yes, but if we really think about it, so is religious morality. Things change as mindsets and life changes. Religious morality just seems to be more antiquated at any one time than non-religious morality.

The idea that we can assign our moral responsibilites to a superior power that just about everyone admits we could never comprehend even if it did exist is just inane. It is best, IMO, to start & end on what we can hope to understand...ourselves. The other animals just dont seem to care!

Mr. P.

[MadArchitect]

Seeker's and Mr. P's comments make me think that it's best to talk a little about what's at stake before we go on the other issues involved.

Basically, I see it this way: If morality is a conception of how we ought to behave in order to be good, then either the good is real, and we can formulate a true morality, or there is no good, and morality is a sham.

If, on the other hand, morality is just a set of rules that we make up in order to achieve our own ends, then why give it the dignity of its own category? Why make it a branch of philosophy? Why risk all the confusion that arises from proclaiming a morality? If morality isn't about wanting to be good, but rather about wanting whatever benefits our agendas, then I'm not sure that it differs from any other kind of behavior.