How do you determine whether something is "good"?

[OldWiseGuy]

Maybe. But maybe its awful. The "self" may simply tire of consciousness and long to re-tire. Its a real leap to even think we can know what eternity 'feels like'.

Mortal life is a type of eternal life. The operative element is life.

Like with many things. Eating ice cream is quite enjoyable. Eating infinite ice cream.... not so much.

Why use ice cream as an example. I have eaten pretty much the same breakfast for years. I still enjoy it, and never tire of it.

Distinguishing between whats seems satisfying at-first-glance vs what is really satisfying... thats wisdom.

Wisdom is the product of time and experience. I lay claim to both, thus my handle.

 

[Ana the Ist]

As a skeptic/nihilist I often have to question whether a particular action is 'good' or 'evil' after realizing ALL ideological/ethical/religious metrics have certain..problems with them.

Without any real ideological/ethical/religious metrics do really adhere to I more or less just rely on something like a combination of hedonistic calculus along with game theory to help make decision; and it works almost as well as 'regular morality' I think.

I have spent enough time on this problem that some of the more minor nuances of it no longer really require my attention (or at least in my humble opinion I don't need to waste more time on them), but I'm wondering if anyone on this forum has anything useful to this topic that I may have missed in past evaluations. Is it that "We do what we do, because that is the way that we do it" or is there something more to it?

I've never found that question particularly difficult...

If an action/behavior aligns with the values which I consider "good"...then I typically determine the action/behavior to be good.

It's a similar process for determining what is "bad".

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

A thing is good if it increases wellbeing, decreases suffering or does both. You can objectively quantify those things. Literacy rate, for example. Or access to basic healthcare.

An entirely different question is whether those things are valued, and that is necessarily subjective.

 

[durangodawood]

....Why use ice cream as an example. I have eaten pretty much the same breakfast for years. I still enjoy it, and never tire of it.....

"Years". Thats like nothing compared to eternity.

 

[dclements]

(Sorry everyone for replying so late..I was reading some of the posts, but some distractions in my real life kept be from focusing on the thread)

I think what I'm willing to consider aesthetically and ethically has something to do with Mansley's final quip in this 4 minute scene from "the Iron Giant" movie...

I agree, but would you say that what the Iron Giant did was a 'good' thing because it saved the other people's lives or because it was "the right thing to do"?

Or in a nutshell do you believe 'good'/'evil' is determined by consequences of one's actions or because of something like Kant's categorical imperative ?

 

[durangodawood]

...Or in a nutshell do you believe 'good'/'evil' is determined by consequences of one's actions or because of something like Kant's categorical imperative ?

The categorical imperative seems a little too metaphysical to me. If you dig deep you have to backstop it with something like God, something outside the picture. For believers thats good enough, I guess. But it seems too fragile. I mean, people do stop believing sometimes. They need something else to ground a moral sense.

So, again:
I consider "good" to be that which makes human life more satisfying... and to a lesser extent the lives of other beings.

Conversely, "bad" is what increases suffering.

The conditions that lead to satisfaction or suffering are natural to us. They are part of the type of being we are, whether you think we are created by God, or emerged as part of nature.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"Years". Thats like nothing compared to eternity.

After awhile you don't think about it.

I love telling this story.
When I was younger I was invited to a deer camp with a friend whose father-in-law owned a huge farm teeming with deer. As we were the youngest we were charged with making breakfast for everyone on opening morning. We queried the group and got the usual requests for eggs, bacon, hash browns etc. One older gentleman, the host's doctor, chuckled and said that he didn't give much thought to what he was going to eat for breakfast as it would be the same fare he had eaten all his life.....oatmeal.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

(Sorry everyone for replying so late..I was reading some of the posts, but some distractions in my real life kept be from focusing on the thread)


I agree, but would you say that what the Iron Giant did was a 'good' thing because it saved the other people's lives or because it was "the right thing to do"?

From the overall context of the movie, I'd have to say that the Iron Giant did his "good act" (i.e. being a savior-type) because he came to "love" his friend, Hogarth, and was willing to sacrifice himself on his behalf, as well as for the sake of the human community involved in the same movie scene.

In reflecting on the Iron Giant's sense of "the good," we might contrast his good existential act with that of Mansley's "personal" act, who attempted to escape the potential missile catastrophe without a care for the rest of the community--and his reason was, "...I want to live!!!" Mansley had determined that "the good" was for him "to live." The Iron Giant had determined it was "good" for his friend, and the accompanying community, "to live."

Or in a nutshell do you believe 'good'/'evil' is determined by consequences of one's actions or because of something like Kant's categorical imperative ?

[This is my view...so please just take it as such ...] If I start from an existential level, I think my determination of "the good" is, or would be, just a matter of how I feel at the beginning of each day, pending sanity and circumstances. That, of course, could be a good thing or bad thing, depending on who is affected. But, if and when I consider that there may be a God, even a Jewish Messiah who has modeled and defined "love" to me (according to what my limited human mind can perceive), then by the end of the day, I can be, and have been, compelled to integrate His moral direction into my existential angst as I process my understanding of "the good."

So, I am neither strictly Utilitarian about "the good," nor am I deontological about it, but I can see how the Christian approach to determining the good in some ways incorporates some aspects of both of these approaches, yet it also has aspects which transcend them both at the same time. The "good" in my perspective is driven by "love," primarily, with considerations trailing behind it regarding consequences for numbers and some sense of duty.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[dclements]

From the overall context of the movie, I'd have to say that the Iron Giant did his "good act" (i.e. being a savior-type) because he came to "love" his friend, Hogarth, and was willing to sacrifice himself on his behalf, as well as for the sake of the human community involved in the same movie scene.

In reflecting on the Iron Giant's sense of "the good," we might contrast his good existential act with that of Mansley's "personal" act, who attempted to escape the potential missile catastrophe without a care for the rest of the community--and his reason was, "...I want to live!!!" Mansley had determined that "the good" was for him "to live." The Iron Giant had determined it was "good" for his friend, and the accompanying community, "to live."

[This is my view...so please just take it as such ...] If I start from an existential level, I think my determination of "the good" is, or would be, just a matter of how I feel at the beginning of each day, pending sanity and circumstances. That, of course, could be a good thing or bad thing, depending on who is affected. But, if and when I consider that there may be a God, even a Jewish Messiah who has modeled and defined "love" to me (according to what my limited human mind can perceive), then by the end of the day, I can be, and have been, compelled to integrate His moral direction into my existential angst as I process my understanding of "the good."

So, I am neither strictly Utilitarian about "the good," nor am I deontological about it, but I can see how the Christian approach to determining the good in some ways incorporates some aspects of both of these approaches, yet it also has aspects which transcend them both at the same time. The "good" in my perspective is driven by "love," primarily, with considerations trailing behind it regarding consequences for numbers and some sense of duty.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

I more or less agree with much of what you are saying (even though I'm partial to nihilism) but there are a few problems with what you are saying. I can understand that people try to do 'good' to both help others and help themselves, but I'm trying to determine what determines that which is 'good' or how you or anyone else can determine that which is 'objectively good' (ie. 'good' that isn't biased toward a person or group of people).

For me, often when we try to do 'good' (don't lie,cheat,steal / help others/ etc.) we applying some 'rule of thumb' moral beliefs where certain actions usually are better for everyone involved and often such rules are 'ok' in and of themselves. The problem is that these rules of thumb sometimes do not work (or do not apply to a particular situation at hand) and instead of a rule of thumb the problem requires a sort of judgement call to determine that which is 'good'. The problem with judgement calls is they differ from person to person (just as morality does) and the ONLY METRIC that can be used to separate 'good'/'evil' is DETERMINING the CONSEQUENCES of any particular action or actions. Or in other words, actions are not good or bad in and of themselves it is the consequences of any action that determine whether it this and whether it is actually objectively 'good'/'evil'.

And of course the problem with defining consequences as the determining factor as to whether something is objectively 'good' or 'evil' IS THAT WE DON"T KNOW ENOUGH BEFORE HAND TO KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL CONSEQUENCES OF ANY PARTICULAR ACTION IS. Another way to put it is as Hume said "you can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'" (ie. we don't know enough of many situations to definitively be able to tell what course of action is objectively the best). And another way to put it other than what Hume said is the old saying "the highway to hell is built on 'good' intentions".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I more or less agree with much of what you are saying (even though I'm partial to nihilism) but there are a few problems with what you are saying. I can understand that people try to do 'good' to both help others and help themselves, but I'm trying to determine what determines that which is 'good' or how you or anyone else can determine that which is 'objectively good' (ie. 'good' that isn't biased toward a person or group of people).

Maybe I need to be a little clearer in trying to relate the inferences I'm making, because on some level there is only a foot distance between existentialism and nihilism; in this, we're close philosophical cousins. My point actually coalesces with yours, and that point is--without a SUPREME DEFINER of "the good," whether that be some order or force by which we could apply to in the universe, or the presence of a god, we are nearly like rudderless ships on the oceans of our lives, subject to the forces and currents that impact our emotions and decision making processes day by day. What we think is "true" and "right" and "good" today, might be seen by as erroneous "tomorrow."

For me, often when we try to do 'good' (don't lie,cheat,steal / help others/ etc.) we applying some 'rule of thumb' moral beliefs where certain actions usually are better for everyone involved and often such rules are 'ok' in and of themselves. The problem is that these rules of thumb sometimes do not work (or do not apply to a particular situation at hand) and instead of a rule of thumb the problem requires a sort of judgement call to determine that which is 'good'. The problem with judgement calls is they differ from person to person (just as morality does) and the ONLY METRIC that can be used to separate 'good'/'evil' is DETERMINING the CONSEQUENCES of any particular action or actions. Or in other words, actions are not good or bad in and of themselves it is the consequences of any action that determine whether it this and whether it is actually objectively 'good'/'evil'.

I agree, which is why I said that Christianity isn't primarily structured by either a utilitarian or deontological set of indicators or directives for "the good." In fact, probably in some ways similar to yourself, I'm going to say that without a SUPREME DEFINER, we are all at the beck and call of apparently existential and often seemingly inchoate forces which play upon our decision making and defining processes.

And of course the problem with defining consequences as the determining factor as to whether something is objectively 'good' or 'evil' IS THAT WE DON"T KNOW ENOUGH BEFORE HAND TO KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL CONSEQUENCES OF ANY PARTICULAR ACTION IS. Another way to put it is as Hume said "you can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'" (ie. we don't know enough of many situations to definitively be able to tell what course of action is objectively the best). And another way to put it other than what Hume said is the old saying "the highway to hell is built on 'good' intentions".

Yep. So, for those of us who think there is no SUPREME DEFINER, and we see little or no cogency in utilitarianism, deontology, any "virtue ethics," or "ethics of care," we'll probably tend toward a full-blown, Sartrean existentialism or some form of Nihilism.

So, existentially, each of us decides if we think we sense or perceive a SUPREME DEFINER in the reality around us. We see this in the movie, the Iron Giant; the Giant sensed "metaphysical love" as a defining force in his existential conception of who he thought he was, or at least in who he wanted to be. At the point the Giant felt he discovered and understood the presence of an "is," he also felt there was an "ought" to be done. Mansley, on the other hand, felt the presence of "just himself."

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Paradoxum]

...as if anyone (or at least any man) would want to punch you in face, Para.

You never know.

But, some people feel that there is a "good" to be had by punching others in the face. We might call them Communists, or we might call them Muslims; we might even call them Crusaders, but your desire to not be punched probably isn't going to be recognized on a global scale. So, what Hobbesian "Leviathan" will you apply to secure your "good"?

I agree... and that's kinda what I meant. Their good is to punch me in the face, my good is for them to not do it, and since it's my property my good wins, and so that's the overall good, or morality. That's my basic thinking.

If you'e talking about enforcement, that law, not morality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You never know.

I agree... and that's kinda what I meant. Their good is to punch me in the face, my good is for them to not do it, and since it's my property my good wins, and so that's the overall good, or morality. That's my basic thinking.

If you'e talking about enforcement, that law, not morality.

Well.......since we need "law" as a possible form of enforcement by which to possibly procure our personal "good," it too is a "good" about which we have to deliberate and decide upon and support.

Moreover, the basic understanding my atheist professors gave me about politics is that it amounts to a form of "applied ethics," and it shares a space within the rest of the grounds of Axiology, in which our attempts to discern "the good," along with ethics and morality, are most active.

What good is it to define our concept of "the good" if we have little means by which to procure it? Without one good (law, ethics, morality) supporting another (our good), we don't actually get to have our cake and eat it too, we just express wishful thinking about what we'd like to have others "do unto us."

Anyway, I hope no one wants to smear your mascara, Para. That would be an awful thing.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[dclements]

Maybe I need to be a little clearer in trying to relate the inferences I'm making, because on some level there is only a foot distance between existentialism and nihilism; in this, we're close philosophical cousins. My point actually coalesces with yours, and that point is--without a SUPREME DEFINER of "the good," whether that be some order or force by which we could apply to in the universe, or the presence of a god, we are nearly like rudderless ships on the oceans of our lives, subject to the forces and currents that impact our emotions and decision making processes day by day. What we think is "true" and "right" and "good" today, might be seen by as erroneous "tomorrow."

I agree, which is why I said that Christianity isn't primarily structured by either a utilitarian or deontological set of indicators or directives for "the good." In fact, probably in some ways similar to yourself, I'm going to say that without a SUPREME DEFINER, we are all at the beck and call of apparently existential and often seemingly inchoate forces which play upon our decision making and defining processes.

Yep. So, for those of us who think there is no SUPREME DEFINER, and we see little or no cogency in utilitarianism, deontology, any "virtue ethics," or "ethics of care," we'll probably tend toward a full-blown, Sartrean existentialism or some form of Nihilism.

So, existentially, each of us decides if we think we sense or perceive a SUPREME DEFINER in the reality around us. We see this in the movie, the Iron Giant; the Giant sensed "metaphysical love" as a defining force in his existential conception of who he thought he was, or at least in who he wanted to be. At the point the Giant felt he discovered and understood the presence of an "is," he also felt there was an "ought" to be done. Mansley, on the other hand, felt the presence of "just himself."

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

But is it really just that simple as you say? For example what happens if the God you choose to follow has morality that is a bit what you could call 'arbitrary' (ie. there is no rhyme or reason to what he/she/it chooses to do), then you become mere plaything to this all-powerful or at least more powerful being if you just say whatever they choose goes. In horror genre such as Lovecraft's Cthulhu mythos, humanity is tormented by evil god/God like beings who sometimes even worship them even though their are often more demon and god-like.

In a world troubled by such evil beings, is 'good' defined by the will of such god-like/demon beings (if they don't know anything about Christianity and Abrahamic religions) or do they still have rights and responsibility to follow what they believe is 'good' regardless of the whims of such beings?

I'm kind of trending on thin ice here since this is a Christian forum and I don't want to say anything negative about Christianity or faith in God itself, but I think it is safe to say that one CAN NOT just do what they think God wants them to if such actions involve hurting others and not expect other people to let them get away with it. Such an example of such behavior include ISIS who believe hurting and murdering people in the name of Allah is the right thing to do.

Also there is the issue of how in the Old Testament, God didn't seem to be that much of a nice guy and seemed to dispense punishment and justice...well more arbitrary then we imagine a wise and good God would. While this changed in the New Testament, the fact that God behaved as he did in the Old and then changed in the New can create problems in itself as well.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there seems to be holes in your argument, not the least it potentially being an appeal to authority or antiquity fallacy, and that it isn't a given that doing as you say is always the right thing to do; in the context of a philosophically argument and not necessarily anything against Christianity or other Abrahamic religions of course.

 

[ExodusMe]

I'm kind of trending on thin ice here since this is a Christian forum and I don't want to say anything negative about Christianity or faith in God itself, but I think it is safe to say that one CAN NOT just do what they think God wants them to if such actions involve hurting others and not expect other people to let them get away with it. Such an example of such behavior include ISIS who believe hurting and murdering people in the name of Allah is the right thing to do.

As a Christian, this only becomes an issue when I begin to think about things like self defense. I have a gun in my home to point at bad guys if they break in. Would I ever shoot them? Not sure. I don't want to, but I think I could. Is it morally good for me to shoot that person? No. Is it morally good for me to defend my family? Yes. I think there are grey areas like this that are hard for Christian's to answer, but if it comes to something like "should I kill someone because they follow another religion" that would be absurd for a Christian to do and they would know that from scripture.

Also there is the issue of how in the Old Testament, God didn't seem to be that much of a nice guy and seemed to dispense punishment and justice...well more arbitrary then we imagine a wise and good God would. While this changed in the New Testament, the fact that God behaved as he did in the Old and then changed in the New can create problems in itself as well.

Not sure what text in the OT you are referring to, but I would be able to defend them on a case by case basis if you have references. Keep in mind that Israel also functioned in a separate manner than the Chuch does today. God used Israel to bring about the birth of Jesus. Further, He was always patient waiting for the people to repent before he executed judgement on them. For example, he waited some 400 years according to scripture before he brought judgement on the Canaanites. Moreover, we would have to evaluate in what sense God would be or would not be just in dispensing judgement on a people. According to Christian doctrine God is perfectly just/holy/righteous/morally perfect. Would God be evil for executing judgement on free creatures who chose to disobey him? I don't think so. IMO he is beyond patient with us.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there seems to be holes in your argument, not the least it potentially being an appeal to authority or antiquity fallacy, and that it isn't a given that doing as you say is always the right thing to do; in the context of a philosophically argument and not necessarily anything against Christianity or other Abrahamic religions of course.

An appeal to authority is saying that such and such is true because someone said so. If the other poster is simply saying that moral right and wrong is decided based on the commands of God, then that would not be an appeal to authority. I didn't read it so correct me if I am wrong. Thanks

 

[Paradoxum]

Well.......since we need "law" as a possible form of enforcement by which to possibly procure our personal "good," it too is a "good" about which we have to deliberate and decide upon and support.

Okay... I don't know what your overall point is though.

Moreover, the basic understanding my atheist professors gave me about politics is that it amounts to a form of "applied ethics," and it shares a space within the rest of the grounds of Axiology, in which our attempts to discern "the good," along with ethics and morality, are most active.

I wouldn't say that politics is a applied ethics. But I can see why you might say that if you have a broad definition of ethics. I'd say morality is "Adultery is generally wrong", but politics/law is "Adultery is acceptable".

What good is it to define our concept of "the good" if we have little means by which to procure it?

To convince others? We should strive to force all our morals on others. That's just tyranny.

Without one good (law, ethics, morality) supporting another (our good), we don't actually get to have our cake and eat it too, we just express wishful thinking about what we'd like to have others "do unto us."

We can convince others.

Anyway, I hope no one wants to smear your mascara, Para. That would be an awful thing.

It's okay, the last fight I had I was about 11, taking a younger girl's hat back from an older girl... I was destroyed.

 

[quatona]

As a skeptic/nihilist I often have to question whether a particular action is 'good' or 'evil' after realizing ALL ideological/ethical/religious metrics have certain..problems with them.

Without any real ideological/ethical/religious metrics do really adhere to I more or less just rely on something like a combination of hedonistic calculus along with game theory to help make decision; and it works almost as well as 'regular morality' I think.

I have spent enough time on this problem that some of the more minor nuances of it no longer really require my attention (or at least in my humble opinion I don't need to waste more time on them), but I'm wondering if anyone on this forum has anything useful to this topic that I may have missed in past evaluations. Is it that "We do what we do, because that is the way that we do it" or is there something more to it?

I guess I don´t care much about the question "Is this good"? In trying to avoid the definitional problems that come with this term, I prefer to ask more precise questions, e.g.: "Do I like it?", "Does it help making the world the place I want it to be?", "Is my motive in doing this empathic?", "Does it conform with my values?", etc.

 

[ExodusMe]

I guess I don´t care much about the question "Is this good"? In trying to avoid the definitional problems that come with this term, I prefer to ask more precise questions, e.g.: "Do I like it?", "Does it help making the world the place I want it to be?", "Is my motive in doing this empathic?", "Does it conform with my values?", etc.

When you make moral values about yourself you lose any reference point for justice & equality. If you decide that punching a nazi racist in the head is good while he is on television, then does that make it okay for when someone disagrees with you and you get interviewed on television?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hi dclements,

But is it really just that simple as you say?

It's definitely not simple, and I really had no intention to imply that choosing “the good” is simple. I think we all know that it isn't.

For example what happens if the God you choose to follow has morality that is a bit what you could call 'arbitrary' (ie. there is no rhyme or reason to what he/she/it chooses to do), then you become mere plaything to this all-powerful or at least more powerful being if you just say whatever they choose goes. In horror genre such as Lovecraft's Cthulhu mythos, humanity is tormented by evil god/God like beings who sometimes even worship them even though their are often more demon and god-like.

There's always the possibility that if some sentient being is a SUPREME DEFINER, there could be the chance that we might find arbitrary rules in the mix somewhere. However, the question comes down to whether or not we actually do perceive that arbitrary commands are being made. If we don't perceive arbitrariness, then we won't know that it is the case, even if it is. As for the Cthulhu mythos, I wouldn't put it past those kinds of beings to be arbitrary (or worse).

In a world troubled by such evil beings, is 'good' defined by the will of such god-like/demon beings (if they don't know anything about Christianity and Abrahamic religions) or do they still have rights and responsibility to follow what they believe is 'good' regardless of the whims of such beings?

I'm not so much concerned with applying existential thought to hypothetical worlds; our real world is existentially difficult enough to deal with as it is.

You mention trouble by “evil beings.” The next question would be then: Is our world troubled by such evil beings? How would you know they are evil, by the way? And if these beings are evil, are they identified as such from their own point of view, or from the view of Christianity, or some other form of Supreme Definer? Because, if these beings are evil according to Christian standards, then the implication would be that those evil beings would be more like Satan in their morality (or rather in their immoral characteristics), and they would be considered evil BECAUSE they shirk the responsibilities and rights as define by the Biblical ethos.

I'm kind of trending on thin ice here since this is a Christian forum and I don't want to say anything negative about Christianity or faith in God itself, but I think it is safe to say that one CAN NOT just do what they think God wants them to if such actions involve hurting others and not expect other people to let them get away with it. Such an example of such behavior include ISIS who believe hurting and murdering people in the name of Allah is the right thing to do.

I can agree with you here to some extent. Sure, some people will think it isn't preferential to have to clash ideologically with other minds over who and what sense of “the good” is to win out. But, it is obvious that some people actually DO things which they think their God is telling them to do, and they will do these things whether we like it or not.

Also there is the issue of how in the Old Testament, God didn't seem to be that much of a nice guy and seemed to dispense punishment and justice...well more arbitrary then we imagine a wise and good God would. While this changed in the New Testament, the fact that God behaved as he did in the Old and then changed in the New can create problems in itself as well.

Actually, if you read the New Testament in full, there's plenty there to show that Jesus acts in ways similar in ways to those portrayed in the Old Testament—there were rules for Blessings and Curses. The one significant difference between the Testaments is that Jesus extends Mercy, Grace, and Love before ultimate Judgment, … but judgment in the New Testament still comes at some point in the future, nevertheless.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there seems to be holes in your argument,

I'm sure there always could be a hole here or there ...

... not the least it potentially being an appeal to authority or antiquity fallacy

If you'll review what I said in the previous posts, the existential state each of us finds ourselves in will be privy to various influences, some of which will be perceptions felt which pertain to religious notions that not all of us share. Moreover, an appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority being appealed to is one that has little to no credibility or power. Some people may feel they existentially perceive that a only dusty religious book exudes credibility or power; other people may not.

... and that it isn't a given that doing as you say is always the right thing to do

No, it isn't always a given, because discerning the good is difficult for all of us existentially.

... in the context of a philosophically argument and not necessarily anything against Christianity or other Abrahamic religions of course.

That's fine if you think you see holes in my points. You're free to think so. I don't think I'll lose the shirt off my back if you disagree with me.

Please realize that in sharing my existential point of view about how I think we each generally determine “the good,” I'm not presenting a prescriptive method for anyone to follow; rather, I'm being descriptive, and I want to merely express my point of view. And since discerning “the good” and/or morality is difficult for all of us, I am under no illusions that what I've said here will be something you'll want to adopt without at least some serious scrutiny.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay... I don't know what your overall point is though.

Basically, my point is that we can all decide what we personally would like "the good" to be, but that doesn't necessarily mean we'll procure it without the integration of other forms of "the good," forms we may or may not want.

I wouldn't say that politics is a applied ethics. But I can see why you might say that if you have a broad definition of ethics. I'd say morality is "Adultery is generally wrong", but politics/law is "Adultery is acceptable".

Yes, you're right. In reviewing what my professors said, their attribution of applied ethics was to bio-ethics and business ethics.

To convince others? We should strive to force all our morals on others. That's just tyranny.

I don't think I said anything about forcing "the good" upon others.

We can convince others.

Where I live, convincing others is much, much easier said than done.

It's okay, the last fight I had I was about 11, taking a younger girl's hat back from an older girl... I was destroyed.

So, who got the hat?

 

[ananda]

As a skeptic/nihilist I often have to question whether a particular action is 'good' or 'evil' after realizing ALL ideological/ethical/religious metrics have certain..problems with them.

Without any real ideological/ethical/religious metrics do really adhere to I more or less just rely on something like a combination of hedonistic calculus along with game theory to help make decision; and it works almost as well as 'regular morality' I think.

I have spent enough time on this problem that some of the more minor nuances of it no longer really require my attention (or at least in my humble opinion I don't need to waste more time on them), but I'm wondering if anyone on this forum has anything useful to this topic that I may have missed in past evaluations. Is it that "We do what we do, because that is the way that we do it" or is there something more to it?

Something is "good" if it reduces my suffering & the suffering of others.