How do you determine whether something is "good"?

[dclements]

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?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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 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...

 

[durangodawood]

How do you determine whether something is "good"?

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.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

I'm thinking that "Longevity" sounds quite satisfying. Eternal Longevity sounds even more satisfying.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm thinking that "Longevity" sound quite satisfying. Eternal Longevity sounds even more satisfying.

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'.

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

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

 

[GrowingSmaller]

For me good and evil are like this:

Inner life -------------Outer world--------Ethical valuation
Positive --------------Positive ........... Optimum goodness
Negative --------------Negative ........... Suboptimum goodness
Negateive --------------Positive ........... Irrational and evil
Positive ----------------Negative ........... irrational and evil


life is a complex game played on such a landscape, albeit its a simplification excluding activity. We are not purely good or evil, because life is so complicated that would be impossible.

Now, enjoy!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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'.

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

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

Did....did someway say say "ice cream"? As in, all the "ice cream" I could ever want to eat?! This would be bad, how?

 

[durangodawood]

Did....did someway say say "ice cream"? As in, all the "ice cream" I could ever want to eat?! This would be bad, how?

OK. Youre right. That was a bad example....

 

[~Anastasia~]

Insofar as I am able to determine, the simplest course for doing or measuring "good" is whether and how much it benefits another person.

As well as HOW it benefits them. Something that simply gives pleasure in the short term but causes damage overall is not truly good.

But both giving pleasure and certainly alleviation from suffering are variables worthy of consideration at some level in the scheme of things.

 

[Paradoxum]

Everything has problems. You can always ask 'why'.

For me, I believe my morals are based on treating beings equally. The individual goods combined are the overall good, or morality.

Simpy, don't violate people. I can be more specific and in detail if you wish.

 

[zippy2006]

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?

"Good" is an analogous term with differing meanings based on context. What is good for a turtle is not the same as what is good for man, and this is not the same as what is good simpliciter.

Your usage seems to refer to what is good for man, or for an individual person. Hedonistic analyses will inevitably come into play, as will "game theory" or more generalized theories such as Kant's Categorical Imperative. For Aristotle and the Catholic tradition human flourishing--both individual and collective--plays a large part in determining what is good for us. Another basic category for Catholics is rationality. According as an act is in accord with right reason and is ordered to human flourishing, it will be a good act.

 

[Dave RP]

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 consider an action to be "Good" if it has a discernible benefit to another human being or the planet on which we live, and an action to be "evil" if is does discernible harm tom another human being or the planet on whicvh with live. Most things we do are neither good nor evil, in my opinion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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?

At a very basic level, I start with the idea that I know what "I like." Then, I take into account an empirical notion that ethics and moral deliberation are somewhat relative from culture to culture and even to some degree, from person to person. Add to this my view that our individual perceptions of the world--and the goods we individually experience and delineate in our minds-- are 'representative' rather than direct. So, it's understandable for someone to take even a nihilistic view when it comes to what they consider to be "the good." Some of this is aesthetic; some of this is rational.

But then "the but" comes in. But...there's this strange thing called the Bible, which is enshrouded in mystery to some extent, like some religions are, and it places some moral assertions before my mind that are, whether I like it or not, definitive...and challenging, telling me that I might not be able to have my cake and eat it too. And I have to decide if I'm going to incorporate these "Jesus Ideals" into my moral matrix. So, do I?

Aw... who am I kiddin'!!! OF COURSE I need to incorporate Jesus' moral commands into my moral matrix. However, agreeing with it is the easy part. Actually doing it (consistently) is a whole other ball game.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Everything has problems. You can always ask 'why'.

For me, I believe my morals are based on treating beings equally. The individual goods combined are the overall good, or morality.

Simpy, don't violate people. I can be more specific and in detail if you wish.

Being more specific and detailed would be a "good" thing, I think, Para.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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'.

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

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

Just incidentally - this is the same principle that caused the 'New Coke' debacle - when doing all the consumer taste tests with little taster cups, almost everyone though 'New Coke' was much nicer than the original (now 'Classic Coke'). Turns out that it does taste better when you only have a couple of sips or a mouthful, but when you try to drink a whole can, it quickly becomes too sickly for most people...

 

[Greg J.]

Critically speaking, I've found that without God's definition (something along the lines of, if it exalts God [such as imitating him] then it is good; if it is in opposition, it is evil), all other definitions are relative to something else, meaning that there is no unassailable basis for any other definition.

It's hard for me to be less critical, because a definition like "good=builds up mankind and when possible builds up all individuals; evil=tears down mankind or individuals (unless necessitated by good for mankind)" ends up being, at the very least, simply a person's opinion, and other people will disagree.

I don't think it is possible for people stuck in the system (mankind) to express a valid meta-truth for (everyone in) the system, because it cannot be authoritative.

 

[tansy]

I don't know that one can always know what is 'good'. Hence those sort of philosophical posers such as: 'If there are 4 people in a boat and only enough food for 3, who do you get rid of, the accountant, the pregnant woman, the carpenter or the farmer?'
I believe that is why, if one is a Christian at any rate, or maybe even if one isn't, God says to ask Him for wisdom. None of us can know unerringly, what is 'good' or 'bad' because we don't necessarily know the consequences of our actions. To use rather an obvious example, one might decide to give one's child lots of sweets everyday because it makes her happy, not knowing that in all likelihood it will rot her teeth, make her overweight, and not be nutritious. (Yes, I know everyone knows that, but I couldn't off-hand think of a less obvious example)

 

[Mediate3]

Hoobajooba

 

[Paradoxum]

Being more specific and detailed would be a "good" thing, I think, Para.

Eg: I don't want to be punched in the face, but they want to punch me, but it's my body, so the overall good (morality) is not to punch me in the face.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Eg: I don't want to be punched in the face, but they want to punch me, but it's my body, so the overall good (morality) is not to punch me in the face.

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

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"?