Normative Person

[Tree of Life]

Do you believe that there is such a thing as a good person? What about a bad person?

If there were such a thing, this would imply that somewhere out there is a normative person - a person who functions as a measuring stick by which all other persons are evaluated. Persons that resemble this normative person are good. Persons that deviate from this normative person are bad.

It's like a good movie or a bad movie. How do we know whether or not a movie is good or bad? Well over the years there have been a lot of movies produced and some of them have become pretty normative. Movies are good or bad in resemblance, conversation with, or deviation from these normative films.

How do we know whether or not a tomato is good or bad? Somewhere in our consciousness we have an idea of a normative tomato. I do think that there probably was an historical normative tomato in the Garden of Eden (where all tomatoes were normative) - but that's another story.

So if it's possible to be a good or bad person there must be a normative person out there. And when we're talking about a normative person we're pretty much talking about God.

 

[Davian]

Do you believe that there is such a thing as a good person? What about a bad person?

Sure.

If there were such a thing, this would imply that somewhere out there is a normative person - a person who functions as a measuring stick by which all other persons are evaluated. Persons that resemble this normative person are good. Persons that deviate from this normative person are bad.

I don't know if that would be an accurate interpretation of statistics. If you stand with one foot in boiling water, and the other in freezing water, will you be at a comfortable temperature?

It's like a good movie or a bad movie. How do we know whether or not a movie is good or bad?

By comparing it to our expectations.

Well over the years there have been a lot of movies produced and some of them have become pretty normative. Movies are good or bad in resemblance, conversation with, or deviation from these normative films.

Generally bad, in my experience.

How do we know whether or not a tomato is good or bad? Somewhere in our consciousness we have an idea of a normative tomato.

It would depend on if you were going to eat them, or grow them, and where.

I do think that there probably was an historical normative tomato in the Garden of Eden (where all tomatoes were normative) - but that's another story.

By my understanding, a fictitious one.

So if it's possible to be a good or bad person there must be a normative person out there. And when we're talking about a normative person we're pretty much talking about God.

The only "persons" I am aware of are human beings. Julius Caesar was a god, was he not? Kim Jong-il? Is this "God" of yours a human being?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do you believe that there is such a thing as a good person? What about a bad person?

If there were such a thing, this would imply that somewhere out there is a normative person - a person who functions as a measuring stick by which all other persons are evaluated. Persons that resemble this normative person are good. Persons that deviate from this normative person are bad.

It's like a good movie or a bad movie. How do we know whether or not a movie is good or bad? Well over the years there have been a lot of movies produced and some of them have become pretty normative. Movies are good or bad in resemblance, conversation with, or deviation from these normative films.

How do we know whether or not a tomato is good or bad? Somewhere in our consciousness we have an idea of a normative tomato. I do think that there probably was an historical normative tomato in the Garden of Eden (where all tomatoes were normative) - but that's another story.

So if it's possible to be a good or bad person there must be a normative person out there. And when we're talking about a normative person we're pretty much talking about God.

You had what appeared to be a fairly interesting topic until this sentence...

"And when we're talking about a normative person we're pretty much talking about God."

Why? Why wouldn't it just be a person? I'm not saying a normative person exists (even in the imagination) but it makes no sense to me to attach the concept to a less defined concept like god. Why would you? It only makes the concept more vague...

If a normative person exists, I would say they exist only in the imagination...and on a scale of good to bad, they would fall exactly in the middle. They would have to fall directly in the middle...if placed on either end of the scale all moral behavior looks either good or bad by comparison. The normative person would cease to be useful in "measuring" the moral behavior of anyone.

So this normative person would almost be balanced by karma at all times. He does a little good, he does a little bad. When we see someone who does something particularly bad, we can look at the worst thing the normative person has done and compare the two actions to decide just how bad that person is. Likewise, we can do the same with good people and their actions.

Of course, this normative person doesn't exist apart from someone's imagination...and as such he would be imagined differently by everyone.

 

[quatona]

Do you believe that there is such a thing as a good person?

No.

What about a bad person?

No.

 

[Moral Orel]

So if it's possible to be a good or bad person there must be a normative person out there. And when we're talking about a normative person we're pretty much talking about God.

a person who functions as a measuring stick by which all other persons are evaluated. Persons that resemble this normative person are good. Persons that deviate from this normative person are bad.

So I should compare myself to God? If my actions and intents are similar to his, then I am good, and if my actions and intent are dissimilar, then I am bad?

So I am bad because I have never committed genocide, caused famine, caused cannibalism, killed anyone, destroyed cities, ordered and regulated and condoned slavery, or made plans to do much worse in the future?

If I had to guess, I would assume that you wanted to focus on the good things that God has done. Let's do that.
So I am bad because I have never created a universe, crafted a planet, created living beings, gave prophecies, or sent myself/son to be the salvation for all the most important creatures that I created?

If we're not talking about the Christian God, which is my assumption given the name of the website, let me know. We can talk about other gods that we have knowledge of their actions as well. Of course it can't be a theoretical god, because then we wouldn't have qualities about that god to compare ourselves too without something being written about him.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Do you believe that there is such a thing as a good person? What about a bad person?

A good person has rational attraction to being.

If there were such a thing, this would imply that somewhere out there is a normative person - a person who functions as a measuring stick by which all other persons are evaluated. Persons that resemble this normative person are good. Persons that deviate from this normative person are bad.

Id say no, because what is appropritte behavior rationally depends on context, and people find themselves in all sorts.

It's like a good movie or a bad movie. How do we know whether or not a movie is good or bad? Well over the years there have been a lot of movies produced and some of them have become pretty normative. Movies are good or bad in resemblance, conversation with, or deviation from these normative films.

Well, we are wired to our own being, and the "movie of life" is where our agency matters most, for each individual. There can be more or less aestehetic lives, which is the current craze, but I think that oftenpeople are abandoning something more precious in the long run, which is overal rationality and adaptivity as a culture and people.

How do we know whether or not a tomato is good or bad? Somewhere in our consciousness we have an idea of a normative tomato. I do think that there probably was an historical normative tomato in the Garden of Eden (where all tomatoes were normative) - but that's another story.

Thats the kind of analogy I like, but a healthy tomato that oppresses others is not a good example. SO the " vine and branches" alike have to be considered, if our wisdom is true and deep.

So if it's possible to be a good or bad person there must be a normative person out there. And when we're talking about a normative person we're pretty much talking about God.

No, I think that people ought to be measured at least by human standards. "Ought implis can" is an ethical phrase, and non of us can be God (unless you accept some kind of Christian substitutionism?)...

 

[Eudaimonist]

Do you believe that there is such a thing as a good person? What about a bad person?

Yes, in terms of their character, but character isn't necessarily fixed.

If there were such a thing, this would imply that somewhere out there is a normative person - a person who functions as a measuring stick by which all other persons are evaluated. Persons that resemble this normative person are good. Persons that deviate from this normative person are bad.

One doesn't have to use a person in such a way, even if they had a consistent character.

It's like a good movie or a bad movie.

Those comparisons are not how I know a good movie from a bad one. I look to the quality of the movie on its own terms to tell me that.

So if it's possible to be a good or bad person there must be a normative person out there. And when we're talking about a normative person we're pretty much talking about God.

No, talking about a normative person isn't talking about God. It's simply talking about a person with a consistent character.

And one doesn't need such a person to evaluate anyone's character. How does one judge the "normative person" to be good or bad? Not in reference to other persons. We examine that person's character. We can do that with anybody.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tree of Life]

So I should compare myself to God? If my actions and intents are similar to his, then I am good, and if my actions and intent are dissimilar, then I am bad?

Short answer - yes.

So I am bad because I have never committed genocide, caused famine, caused cannibalism, killed anyone, destroyed cities, ordered and regulated and condoned slavery, or made plans to do much worse in the future?

This would be taking a general philosophical conversation about an unnamed god and making it very particular. I'm fine with this but I don't want to derail the thread. You and I obviously have very different interpretations of God's actions in the Bible. I don't think we'll come to agreement on this and this thread probably isn't the place for this conversation.

If I had to guess, I would assume that you wanted to focus on the good things that God has done. Let's do that.
So I am bad because I have never created a universe, crafted a planet, created living beings, gave prophecies, or sent myself/son to be the salvation for all the most important creatures that I created?

Most of what you mention here are God's incommunicable attributes - things that are true only of God that can never be true of his creatures. God is eternal, for instance, and we can never imitate him in that. What I mean to focus on here are his communicable attributes. Love, justice, patience, etc...

 

[Tree of Life]

No, I think that people ought to be measured at least by human standards. "Ought implis can" is an ethical phrase, and non of us can be God (unless you accept some kind of Christian substitutionism?)...

We will never be God but we do have much in common with God. We are both persons. Even if you don't accept God's existence you've still got to accept that not all persons are humans (theoretically). If we met an alien being that was also a person I imagine that we would hold him to the same ethical standards as we hold ourselves to.

 

[Tree of Life]

And one doesn't need such a person to evaluate anyone's character. How does one judge the "normative person" to be good or bad? Not in reference to other persons. We examine that person's character. We can do that with anybody.

A normative person, by definition, cannot be judged. Unless we judge them by comparing them to themselves but that would be tautological. The normative person defines good and bad for every other person. And unless there is such a normative person then "good person" and "bad person" are pretty meaningless terms.

 

[Eudaimonist]

A normative person, by definition, cannot be judged.

Without judgment, we can't know that an alleged "normative person" is good or evil. We would be left unable to identify such a person. There is no such thing, by your definition, as a normative person that we can know to be such. That's a poor start to any morality. It is arbitrary from the very start.

Unless we judge them by comparing them to themselves but that would be tautological.

No, one would judge them by characteristics we understand to be good or bad.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

...
Most of what you mention here are God's incommunicable attributes - things that are true only of God that can never be true of his creatures. God is eternal, for instance, and we can never imitate him in that. What I mean to focus on here are his communicable attributes. Love, justice, patience, etc...

...anger, jealously, and vengeance for things beyond one's control. No thanks, even if he was real.

 

[Davian]

We will never be God but we do have much in common with God. We are both persons.

I do not know this. I am only aware of "God" as a character in a book. Movies, too.

Even if you don't accept God's existence you've still got to accept that not all persons are humans (theoretically).

Define "person" in this context.

If we met an alien being that was also a person I imagine that we would hold him to the same ethical standards as we hold ourselves to.

Define "person" in this context that covers both your hypothetical god and your hypothetical alien.

 

[Tree of Life]

Without judgment, we can't know that an alleged "normative person" is good or evil. We would be left unable to identify such a person. There is no such thing, by your definition, as a normative person that we can know to be such. That's a poor start to any morality. It is arbitrary from the very start.



No, one would judge them by characteristics we understand to be good or bad.

So we can only know what characteristics are good or bad for a tomato if we have something like a normative tomato. Same is true for persons. The norm tells us what's good and what's bad.

 

[quatona]

If there were such a thing, this would imply that somewhere out there is a normative person - a person who functions as a measuring stick by which all other persons are evaluated. Persons that resemble this normative person are good. Persons that deviate from this normative person are bad.

I´m not seeing how this "normative person" necessarily exists. An imagined "normative person" will do.

It's like a good movie or a bad movie. How do we know whether or not a movie is good or bad? Well over the years there have been a lot of movies produced and some of them have become pretty normative. Movies are good or bad in resemblance, conversation with, or deviation from these normative films.

1. That´s not how I form my judgement about a movie. I am not comparing them to any "normative movie".
2. It´s interesting that in your analogy there are multiple "normative movies", while you actually want to esatblish a singular entity as normative.

How do we know whether or not a tomato is good or bad? Somewhere in our consciousness we have an idea of a normative tomato.

Whether I call a tomato (or any other thing) "good" depends entirely on the purpose I have for it. There is no such thing as a normative tomato, and it´s not needed.

I do think that there probably was an historical normative tomato in the Garden of Eden (where all tomatoes were normative) - but that's another story.

...and a pretty wild one, at that.

So if it's possible to be a good or bad person there must be a normative person out there. And when we're talking about a normative person we're pretty much talking about God.

Even if an ideal comparandum would be necessary (which you couldn´t convince me of, anyway), we wouldn´t look at a God to compare a human to. That makes no sense, and none of your examples work that way.

Btw., you seem to equivocate "normative"; sometimes you use it in the sense of "ideal", and sometimes you use it as in "someone who determines a norm".

 

[Eudaimonist]

So we can only know what characteristics are good or bad for a tomato if we have something like a normative tomato.

That is neither true for tomatoes nor for persons. I have not chosen a normative tomato through non-rational means, such as a lottery, and then treat that as an ideal tomato even if it is sickly and wilted.

I might very well have an ideal tomato in mind. Let's say it's not ideal simply for my own purposes, such as eating, but rather "for itself" because I have an idea of health.

In that case, only a healthy tomato (that is, a tomato on a healthy tomato plant) could be a normative tomato. That is not based on any prior commitment to a normative tomato, but by examining tomatoes in general with a standard of health. I would look at their biologies to see when their biological processes have successfully come to fruition (no pun intended). Those tomato plants that most fully actualize their natural potentials by fulfilling their natural function as tomato generating plants become candidates as a producer for an ideal (or close-enough-to-ideal) tomato. It is possible that this standard will not be perfectly reached by any actual tomato plant, but will instead be an abstract measure of healthiness.

I would not start with some arbitrary selected normative tomato (and that's all I could start with if I must follow your rules), because that would be begging the question of its actual goodness as a tomato. Goodness would mean nothing here except for "that tomato".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Moral Orel]

Short answer - yes.



This would be taking a general philosophical conversation about an unnamed god and making it very particular. I'm fine with this but I don't want to derail the thread. You and I obviously have very different interpretations of God's actions in the Bible. I don't think we'll come to agreement on this and this thread probably isn't the place for this conversation.



Most of what you mention here are God's incommunicable attributes - things that are true only of God that can never be true of his creatures. God is eternal, for instance, and we can never imitate him in that. What I mean to focus on here are his communicable attributes. Love, justice, patience, etc...

First you say that we are talking about an unnamed god, and then you state the qualities of this unnamed god. Not all gods that have ever been described are loving, just, patient, etc... I stated in my last paragraph that you should let me know if you're not talking about the Christian God, and I admitted to making that assumption. However, it seems even more that you are talking about the Christian God because of the way you describe this unnamed god.

And I had no intention of arguing about whether the things that God did in the Bible are good or not. I merely stated that I haven't done any of those things, from the bad list or the good list. If I am to compare my actions to the actions of the normative being, then I fail on every single one of those accounts. You said, short answer, yes, I am to compare my actions to his.

So I guess, either tell me what god we're talking about, or tell me how you determined what qualities any and all unnamed gods would have.