How do you determine whether something is "good"?

[Paradoxum]

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.

Well I agree, but the law shouldn't always enforce 'the good'.

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

I guess I agree. Bio-ethics tends to be about what should b legally allowed or pursued.

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

Relating morality to law can imply that.

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

I didn't say it was easy.

So, who got the hat?

The girl who's hat it was. I got black eye. Fun.

 

[quatona]

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?

That´s an interesting question. I am not sure, though, how it addresses what I said.
Now, we have two options: Either we discuss what I said (i.e. that I regard it more productive to ask more concrete questions rather than being concerned with discussing the meaning of "good"), or we forget about my point and discuss your question. What would you prefer?

 

[ExodusMe]

@quatona the problem is that I do not see your questions as concrete. They are all relative to the individual.

"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.

What if I want the world to be evil & corrupt. Would that make my actions 'good' then? The point is that if you make good & evil centered on the individual, then it becomes relative. Objective moral values must be external to the human experience.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

What if I want the world to be evil & corrupt. Would that make my actions 'good' then?

No. That would make you evil, as is anything that intentionally reduces wellbeing and/or increases harm.

The point is that if you make good & evil centered on the individual, then it becomes relative. Objective moral values must be external to the human experience.

You are conflating standards with values.

'Objective value' is an oxymoron. Value assessment is always made in regard to a desired outcome, which is necessarily subjective. That remains true whether you plug Yahweh into the equation or not, and if you really want to go down that rabbit hole, I invite you to pick which horn of the Euthyphro dilemma you care to impale yourself on.

Standards, however, can be objective. Things that reduce harm and increase wellbeing - health, literacy, economic independence etc. - are all objectively quantifiable in their effects, irrespective of the existence of Yahweh.

Standards and values are two different things, which theistic moral arguments constantly conflate, and which the invocation of Yahweh does nothing to illuminate in either case. Just one of the many, many reasons why I find them entirely unconvincing.

 

[quatona]

@quatona the problem is that I do not see your questions as concrete. They are all relative to the individual.

Yes, that´s one thing that makes them concrete: that they are relative to something.

What if I want the world to be evil & corrupt.

Then, I think, you have a problem, and will run into even greater problems.

Would that make my actions 'good' then?

Apparently not - since even if we don´t have a working definition of "good", "evil" is by definition the opposite of "good".

The point is that if you make good & evil centered on the individual,

Not all my questions were centered on the individual.

then it becomes relative.

Why sure. What else do you expect to get when you ask for human opinions on a human message board when the question is "How do you determine?", other than subjective human approaches?

Objective moral values must be external to the human experience.

I didn´t say anything about "objective" morals, and neither was it a qualifier in the OP. (Actually I think it´s a contradiction in terms).
But I guess if the topic is something "external to the human experience", this is the end of this thread and we can all go home now.

 

[ExodusMe]

Yes, that´s one thing that makes them concrete: that they are relative to something.

Then, I think, you have a problem, and will run into even greater problems.

Apparently not - since even if we don´t have a working definition of "good", "evil" is by definition the opposite of "good".

Not all my questions were centered on the individual.

Why sure. What else do you expect to get when you ask for human opinions on a human message board when the question is "How do you determine?", other than subjective human approaches?

I didn´t say anything about "objective" morals, and neither was it a qualifier in the OP. (Actually I think it´s a contradiction in terms).
But I guess if the topic is something "external to the human experience", this is the end of this thread and we can all go home now.

The question of the thread is "How do you determine whether something is "good"? It is fine if you use those questions to determine whether a moral action is good or not. I was just pointing out that it is a weak moral framework. As an intellectually honest person I always strive to exhibit my own assumptions about reality as much as possible, so I feel it is my duty to point out when someone has a very poor view of the world.

Thanks

 

[ExodusMe]

'Objective value' is an oxymoron. Value assessment is always made in regard to a desired outcome, which is necessarily subjective. That remains true whether you plug Yahweh into the equation or not, and if you really want to go down that rabbit hole, I invite you to pick which horn of the Euthyphro dilemma you care to impale yourself on.

You must not be current on scholarship, because the Euthyphro dilemma isn't really an issue in modern circles. The Euthyphro dilemma is a false dichotomy. The answer to Plato's question is that it is neither. God is Good. He is the standard of objective moral values and duties. Not really going to argue with you on whether objective moral values are objective because you sound more confused than understanding and I think it would just be a waste of time.

Standards, however, can be objective. Things that reduce harm and increase wellbeing - health, literacy, economic independence etc. - are all objectively quantifiable in their effects, irrespective of the existence of Yahweh.

Standards and values are two different things, which theistic moral arguments constantly conflate, and which the invocation of Yahweh does nothing to illuminate in either case. Just one of the many, many reasons why I find them entirely unconvincing.

You are funny. How do you have objective standards without God? Please enlighten me.

 

[super animator]

No. That would make you evil, as is anything that intentionally reduces wellbeing and/or increases harm.



You are conflating standards with values.

'Objective value' is an oxymoron. Value assessment is always made in regard to a desired outcome, which is necessarily subjective. That remains true whether you plug Yahweh into the equation or not, and if you really want to go down that rabbit hole, I invite you to pick which horn of the Euthyphro dilemma you care to impale yourself on.

Standards, however, can be objective. Things that reduce harm and increase wellbeing - health, literacy, economic independence etc. - are all objectively quantifiable in their effects, irrespective of the existence of Yahweh.

Standards and values are two different things, which theistic moral arguments constantly conflate, and which the invocation of Yahweh does nothing to illuminate in either case. Just one of the many, many reasons why I find them entirely unconvincing.

So you are a utilitarian then.

 

[quatona]

The question of the thread is "How do you determine whether something is "good"? It is fine if you use those questions to determine whether a moral action is good or not. I was just pointing out that it is a weak moral framework. As an intellectually honest person I always strive to exhibit my own assumptions about reality as much as possible, so I feel it is my duty to point out when someone has a very poor view of the world.

No problem. Your opinion is noted.
As soon as you have figured out how to bypass your perception, you are welcome to criticize viewpoints for not being "external to human experience".

 

[quatona]

How do you have objective standards without God?

How do you have objective standards with a God?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You must not be current on scholarship, because the Euthyphro dilemma isn't really an issue in modern circles. The Euthyphro dilemma is a false dichotomy. The answer to Plato's question is that it is neither. God is Good. He is the standard of objective moral values and duties.

No, I'm very much familiar with that answer. What's more, I'm familiar with the rebuttals to it, because I've debated it many times on this very forum. It does nothing whatsoever to avoid the dilemma. All it does is reorder it, slightly, and the horns of the dilemma remain the same.

The question now becomes, did Yahweh choose his own nature?

If he did, you take the horn of arbitrariness.

If he didn't, you take the horn of independent standard.

Which do you care to impale yourself on today?

Not really going to argue with you on whether objective moral values are objective because you sound more confused than understanding and I think it would just be a waste of time.

If you can actually define 'objective value' in any meaningful, coherent fashion, I will hear you out. I don't think you can, though.

You are funny. How do you have objective standards without God? Please enlighten me.

The same way I have objective standards without Peter Pan. Or the Loch Ness Monster. Or Spiderman. Or any other non-entity you care to invoke, none of which are remotely relevant to the issue.

Take health, to use one standard. It is an objectively quantifiable fact that drinking a pint of motor oil will harm you. Nowhere in this assessment is an invocation of Yahweh necessary, or even slightly helpful, so it does not necessitate any ontological basis in his existence.

As to whether you value that standard, that is a different question entirely. One which theistic apologetics always seems to confuse.

This is all to say nothing of the fact that, even granting the existence of Yahweh and his moral standards, you still have no means of discerning what those standards are, so even in that case, he is immaterial to the issue.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So you are a utilitarian then.

I am probably some combination of utilitarian and objectivist (not to be confused with capitol 'O' Objectivist).

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

How do you have objective standards with a God?

I always get a kick out of those loaded questions, 'bluh bluh bluh X without God?'.

Slow down there, cowboy. In fact, back up about... five hundred steps.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Value perception, value in life is
an offshoot of consciousness:

What is good, if we're cold - warmth, a cup of tea?
If we're too hot - an open window, a walk in the breeze....

Consciousness is an offshoot of the body, and the body has accrued (grown, accululated) because it survives.

Therefore value has accrued (accumulated, gathered) because it survives...

 

[Ken-1122]

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?

For me it is about understanding the consequences of actions and how they affect me and my neighbor. If something is helpful to me and my neighbor, I call that good. If something is harmful to me and my neighbor, I call that bad.

Ken

 

[JoeP222w]

To the original question:

By knowing what God says about any such activity from His inerrant word of the Bible.

 

[durangodawood]

To the original question:

By knowing what God says about any such activity from His inerrant word of the Bible.

Thats essentially faith-based, and so, not objective.

 

[ExodusMe]

No, I'm very much familiar with that answer. What's more, I'm familiar with the rebuttals to it, because I've debated it many times on this very forum. It does nothing whatsoever to avoid the dilemma. All it does is reorder it, slightly, and the horns of the dilemma remain the same.

The question now becomes, did Yahweh choose his own nature?

If he did, you take the horn of arbitrariness.

If he didn't, you take the horn of independent standard.

Which do you care to impale yourself on today?

Neither, because God's nature is not independent of Himself. He is Good. Good = God. You are assuming some form of Platonism. You need to stop reading plato and check into the 21st century.

If you can actually define 'objective value' in any meaningful, coherent fashion, I will hear you out. I don't think you can, though.

Objective moral values are moral values that are true whether you agree with them or not. For instance, murder (please don't make me explain the difference between self-defense and murder), lying, stealing, etc...

The same way I have objective standards without Peter Pan. Or the Loch Ness Monster. Or Spiderman. Or any other non-entity you care to invoke, none of which are remotely relevant to the issue.

Peter Pan is not Good. The Loch Ness Monster is not Good. This is the same error you made with your first question. Good and God are not separable. You are taking 'good' and making it some sort of thing that exists 'out there'. Good is not an abstract object. God is Good. Can't help but repeat myself so that you get the point or at least understand what I am trying to say to you. Please tell me you do?

Take health, to use one standard. It is an objectively quantifiable fact that drinking a pint of motor oil will harm you. Nowhere in this assessment is an invocation of Yahweh necessary, or even slightly helpful, so it does not necessitate any ontological basis in his existence.

As to whether you value that standard, that is a different question entirely. One which theistic apologetics always seems to confuse.

Now you are just playing semantics. You are taking good and speaking about it in non-moral terms. There is nothing moral about drinking a pint of motor oil. Neither does the resulted impact to your health. Sure, drinking a pint of motor oil is 'bad' for you, but there is nothing moral about it. Give a better example.

This is all to say nothing of the fact that, even granting the existence of Yahweh and his moral standards, you still have no means of discerning what those standards are, so even in that case, he is immaterial to the issue.

Wrong, the existence of a system of morals that God has allowed humanity to come to know is not hard to hypothesize. Not only that, but the biblical narrative explicitly states that man was made in the image of God. I don't have to scroll to far to establish a framework for how humanity can come to know objective moral values and duties.

Further, if we got back to the original point I made about your confusion with the euthyphro dilemma, God = Good. So, 1) Good is not some abstract object a part from God. God literally IS GOOD. 2) Christian theism teaches that God literally dwells within believers. 3) Christians can discern what objective moral values and duties are because God literally dwells within them and regenerates them.

Peace & love

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Neither, because God's nature is not independent of Himself.

Meaning he didn't choose it. Meaning there is a standard to which he is being measured, one that, if not met, would disqualify him from godhood.

You've chosen the horn of independent standard. 'Goodness' necessitates no ontological basis in Yahweh.

He is Good. Good = God.

I have a word for good already. It's called 'good'. You can avoid the horns of the dilemma this way - by strictly identifying 'good' and 'god' with each other, interchangeably - but you've rendered the entire concept of 'god' superfluous in doing so.

You are assuming some form of Platonism. You need to stop reading plato and check into the 21st century.

I am not a Platonist in any form (pardon the pun).

The Euthyphro dilemma is a counter to the intent of theistic moral arguments, which seek to prove an ontological dependence between morality and the 'god' concept. No one need ascribe to any particular moral philosophy to make use of it. It is a rejection of theistic moral ontology, not a defense of Platonism.

Objective moral values are moral values that are true whether you agree with them or not. For instance, murder (please don't make me explain the difference between self-defense and murder), lying, stealing, etc...

I would not call those 'values'. I would call them standards. Sounds like in this case, we're just describing the same thing using different words. I find the distinction useful.

But to the point, I agree. All of those things are objectively quantifiable in the amount of harm they cause. I would add, though, that at now point in that process is the invocation of Yahweh necessary, nor even remotely helpful.

Peter Pan is not Good. The Loch Ness Monster is not Good. This is the same error you made with your first question.

The point was that the invocation of imaginary non-entities - including, but not limited to, Yahweh - does not illuminate my moral philosophy.

Good and God are not separable.

Again, if they are strictly identical to one another, then Yahweh is superfluous.

You are taking 'good' and making it some sort of thing that exists 'out there'.

No, that would be you.

My concept of moral good is an emergent property rooted entirely in the interactions of sentient beings capable of experiencing harm and wellbeing.

Yours is rooted in a nebulous, 'supernatural' non-concept that is both ontologically and epistemologically vacuous.

Now you are just playing semantics. You are taking good and speaking about it in non-moral terms.

No I'm not.

Morality, in my philosophy, is relevant only in regard to wellbeing or harm deriving from quantifiable experiences. So, drinking motor oil is in fact a moral concern. Were there no minds in existence to glean these experiences, 'morality' would have no meaning at all.

Wrong, the existence of a system of morals that God has allowed humanity to come to know is not hard to hypothesize.

That's hardly a profound statement. It's not hard to hypothesize anything.

The hard part is actually providing a useful epistemological model by which information from and about this 'god' may be consistently and reliably gleaned.

Without that, his existence is irrelevant. He could just as well exist, or not, and we'd be left to our own moral devices in either case.

Which is all to say nothing of the fact that there is no reason to automatically suspect a 'god' would have our best interests in mind in the first place, which is a whole different mountain to climb.

I'm sure glad these aren't my problems.

Further, if we got back to the original point I made about your confusion with the euthyphro dilemma, God = Good.

And I'll get back to your options in pleading this case:

Either 'good' and 'god' are strictly identical, and 'god' is superfluous.

Or you take the horn of independent standard. Any being not acting in accordance with 'goodness' could not possibly be 'god', which necessarily implies an independent standard to which he is being measured.

Peace & love

Shazbot. Nanu-Nanu.

 

[super animator]

There is a reason why divine command theory isn't wildly accepted by philosophers.