Good and Bad?

[Jeremiah the Bullfrog]

What is good? What is bad? How do you know what is good and what is bad? Why is what is good, good? Why is what is bad, bad?

 

[professor frink]

Perhaps good is centered around doing no harm? Thats pretty vauge, but I think its how I see things at the moment. Following from that, bad might be centered around actions that directly or indirectly cause harm. Where I become confused is in the realm of whether the ends justify the means. Is a series of actions good if its vector sum is positive and bad if its vector sum is negative? Or do we evaluate each action on its own?

 

[Magisterium]

I heard it once explained that something is considered good if it attains the purpose for which it was created. Conversely, something is bad if it does not.

The example used in this explanation was a pencil. The pencil was a good writing instrument in that it achieved this purpose well. However, it was a bad can opener in that it would not attain that purpose well.

This translates morally to man's purpose. The Christian understanding is that mankind's purpose is to know and love God. Once this premise is established, all things can be judged according to this goal. Therefore, things which hinder one's ability to focus upon and love God, are naturally bad.

Of course, a hedonist's morality would be based upon the premise that mankind's purpose is self gratification. By that standard, all things that do not produce pleasure would be considered bad.

In short, in order to define good and bad, an ultimate purpose must be established against which all things and acts can be measured.

 

[Polycarp1]

That's a deep question -- probably a lot deeper than most people think. It goes to the root of what "goodness" and "evil" mean, and where they come from. People love to play "what if" games -- "What if God decreed that hatred was good?" "What if God had made child molestation to be a good thing?" and all that sort of thing. Is "good" good because of some natural reason independent of God, or is it good because God so decreed it? And could He have so arranged things that things we agree are good might not be?

I submit that "good" only has meaning with respect to humanity, the only biological species capable of real moral choice -- what is "good" for man is not necessarily "good" for God, who is in a quite different role with regard to morality. "What if" questions are nearly as meaningless in moral theology as they are in physics -- "what if gravity repelled rather than attracted?" is not a question with a meaningful answer in this universe, and neither is "what if 'evil' were really 'good'?" In the world as we know it, "good" is what conduces to the long-term happiness and benefit of the individual -- and may include self-sacrificial acts, given the ultimate destination of the person who does them in faith and love. For humans, humility is good, and arrogating to ourselves the right to act as if we were God is evil -- but for Him, the latter is the natural role, because He is God.

 

[tcampen]

Poly,

that's a great post. It totally refutes the whole concept of absolute morality, which is fine, too.

IMO, good is logical, intuitive, and just is. Good is what it is independent of any being, including God. Sometimes it it is easily understood and rational, other times you know it when you see it. It would simple take too long to type an adequate answer to this great question.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

I agree with Polycarp. "good" and "bad" can only apply to things that have a goal. A job promotion is good for me, bad for the guy who didn't get it, and neutral to a rock. Things can't be good or bad for a rock, because a rock has no goal.

What is good, I think, is what contributes to or furthers your personal flourishing. What is bad is what detracts or hinders personal flourishing.

 

[Spike~]

Good and bad is relative. What maybe good for me, might be bad for you.

But, the way I define it, is that if it enhances the quality of one's life, whether it be physically, spiritually, mentally, emontionally, professionally, ect, then it is good. If it doesn't, it is nuetral. It it hurts th quality of someone's life, then it is bad.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Good and bad are just *very* vague abstracts whose function aims at evaluating different modes of behaviour. Therefore, a deadly virus cannot be "bad" in a moral sense, even though its effects are quite negative.

And to define good as "that if it enhances the quality of one's life" is *veeeeery* dangerous. Let's say, taking the land of a small (perhaps 5,000 people or so) bush tribe that inhabits a stretch of land full of ressources would benefit millions of people in the first world. Would it be "good" to drive those minority away from their ancient homeland, or even to kill them, simply because *we* profit from it? Nope, certainly not.
Good and bad are black and white terms, basically oversimplifications. This world is anything but simple.

 

[Spike~]

Good and bad are just *very* vague abstracts whose function aims at evaluating different modes of behaviour. Therefore, a deadly virus cannot be "bad" in a moral sense, even though its effects are quite negative.

And to define good as "that if it enhances the quality of one's life" is *veeeeery* dangerous. Let's say, taking the land of a small (perhaps 5,000 people or so) bush tribe that inhabits a stretch of land full of ressources would benefit millions of people in the first world. Would it be "good" to drive those minority away from their ancient homeland, or even to kill them, simply because *we* profit from it? Nope, certainly not.
Good and bad are black and white terms, basically oversimplifications. This world is anything but simple.

Well, for me, good and bad are not synonomous with right and wrong.

 

[Davebuck]

so what is right and what is wrong?