The Nature of Goodness

[Jane_the_Bane]

I suppose it is save to say that we all believe in the intrinsic good of whatever moral code we embrace, and perceive ourselves as agents of positive values (as defined by our respective religions and world views).

But how do you (or your religion) define goodness? What renders it good?
Monotheistic religions tend to merely conflate their deity with goodness, point to scriptural passages where this deity claims to be good, or else just equate power with goodness (Calvinism, I'm looking at you).
In that case, how do you evaluate goodness? How do you determine whether what that deity supposedly claims is correct? What, in short, are the criteria for something to be perceived as good?

 

[awitch]

I suppose the simple answer is to assess the situation and weigh the potential harm versus the potential benefit.

 

[AskTheFamily]

I think it's a very complex property of humanity. I also think that metaphysics is a requirement of it.

Here is the thing. When comes to goodness, I do think the action is important, but it's more of the spirit behind the action, that is the most important.

And the spirit behind the action is the individual. Now the individual, what is that?

I think naturalism can account of how a delusional concept of self was created through evolution.

It's very simple why. Those who had a concept of self and identity, would survive.

I would further argue, that scientific evidence, points to it being a delusion. People with multiple personalities for example, their brain creates more then one identity. But we believe they are still one person, and not multiple people.

Perpetual identity is another important factor and the inheritance of actions.

Actions are a state of being. When we do an evil action, it's not just an action, but that state of the spirit we have at that time.

These "instances of us", I believe form a living existence, and our actions are alive.

But with naturalism, actions can't be alive. They are alive in the sense they are created by the psyche and remembered to a degree, but they aren't a living inheritance.

We rather evolved inately thinking actions form a part of us, and regret our evil actions and feel pride over are praiseworthy actions, because it helps function better. And those without those beliefs were less likely to pass on genes.

So to me, goodness is either a delusional property we assign to a delusional concept of an individual created by biological forces with no substance to back it up or it's a metaphysical property of souls (including God).

There is more to it. I don't think objective morals has to do with universal morals. I think it's relatively objective. What I mean by that, is that given person's experience he may form a noble intention behind an action while that same action with another person's experience can only be done with a ignoble intention.

I think creatures with concept of self, they're mind is either creating a delusion or the mind is interwined with a spirit and they do have knowledge of a spirit.

Given that it's the spirit behind the action, animals too can have noble intentions, even if there morality is not as sophisticated as ours.

I also believe reason is like a tree. In it's rooted essence, it's one thing, simple, one, but it branches out. I believe morality is a branch of reason, and the details all branch out from it.

Bin Laden has a concept of himself. But most people believe he is deluded in the concept of himself. This is the problem if we identify ourselves simply to be the identity we have. Then it definitely is a delusion for a great amount of humans.

Furthermore, does anyone claim to know their exact worth, their exact value, their exact degree of beauty or ugliness (talking about the identity, not body)?

I don't think anyone does. And if they do, surely they are deluded.

This tells me, we are unkown with a guesstimate, and our concept of self, is just an estimate we have that can be far from reality or close or entirely a delusion with no possible reality behind it.

If there is any truth to our guess, there must be a soul.

 

[floating axehead]

What, in short, are the criteria for something to be perceived as good?

Interesting question. Our perceptions mean what, exactly?

I won't be so brash as to say everything we perceive as good might be perceived by someone else as bad, but that tendency is there. So I think human perception is inherently disqualified from making any valid statement on the matter.

 

[Arthra]

I think there is an implied standard for most religions of "goodness"..

As Jesus reported to have said:

7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

"By their fruits you shall know them"

To me there is a standard between the believer and God and that standard could be qualified by a covenant.. and the nature of the heart...the innocense and humility of the believer.

"By faith is meant, first, conscious knowledge, and second, the practice of good deeds."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith, p. 382)

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

So I think human perception is inherently disqualified from making any valid statement on the matter.

And yet, that's what we are ultimately settled with - for even if we assume that there is a supernatural entity who *is* qualified to make such judgments and share them with us, it'd still fall to us to recognize that as correct - by some qualifier or other.

Or, to put it differently:
Even a being like Satan could state: "I am good, and everything that proceeds from me is love and truth."
There must be some external qualifiers enabling us to evaluate such statements, else we'd be forced to blindly accept whatever we are told, never knowing any better.

What are those external qualifiers, and what is it that renders them "good"?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

AskTheFamily, you have some very interesting - if somewhat misguided - notions about naturalism and its deductions. (And I feel I might be at least partially to blame for that, seeing how we've talked about the illusory nature of the permanent self before. Accordingly, I feel the need to put some of these misconceptions right and jump straight to the relevant passages

I think naturalism can account of how a delusional concept of self was created through evolution.

You seem to be excessively fond of the word "delusional" when it comes to naturalism. But even the most "materially reductive" naturalism does not conceive of the "self" or "morality" as a delusion - nor is it the logical consequence of that specific angle.
Now, I'm not a reductive materialist, but a monist. Still, I hold that the notion of a perpetual, unchangeable "self" is an illusion, drawing upon empiric observations shared by the mind sciences, psychoanalysis et.al.
But I fear that you have misinterpreted what this means, and why there is a difference between this illusion and the "meaningless delusion" you believe to detect there.

Let me try to explain:
If you believed there was a green-fanged monster standing right behind you that'd eat you the moment you turned around and acknowledged its existence - THAT would be a delusion. Nobody else would see it, and even if you hallucinated to the point where you'd actually feel that it attacked you, it'd still be a mere product of mental disease.

What I am talking about when I call the permanent "self" an illusion or a construct is something else.

Imagine that you are looking at a large building that's been constructed to look as if it consists of a single slab of polished stone, especially from a distance. It is easy to believe that this building is seamless and whole in and of itself - but it is not. Upon closer examination, you would detect that it consists of many different parts - parts that are occasionally replaced with others, parts that do not fit together perfectly, parts that create the impression of a seamless coherence, but are in fact only constructed to look that way. What's more, the unseen interior of the building (where most things are happening) is even more malleable and shifting, with office spaces being rented out to different companies, rooms being re-arranged and adjusted to personal taste, etc.

THAT is what the "self" is like: not a delusion, but a construct that creates the illusion of permanence and singularity, even though it consists of many shifting parts.

It's very simple why. Those who had a concept of self and identity, would survive.

As full-fledged self-awareness is still a pretty rare (and recent) phenomenon, I doubt that this angle holds water. Especially seeing how some of the most successful species on the planet who've been around a hundred times longer than Man can obviously do without it altogether: ants, jellyfish - even germs.
Self-awareness might give *some* advantage to *some* species, but it might also be a mere by-product of other cognitive functions that have aided our ancestors adapt better to their circumstances.

This post would become FAR too long if I addressed all of your points in a single reply, but I'll get back to that.

 

[Casual Observer]

And yet, that's what we are ultimately settled with - for even if we assume that there is a supernatural entity who *is* qualified to make such judgments and share them with us, it'd still fall to us to recognize that as correct - by some qualifier or other.

Or, to put it differently:
Even a being like Satan could state: "I am good, and everything that proceeds from me is love and truth."
There must be some external qualifiers enabling us to evaluate such statements, else we'd be forced to blindly accept whatever we are told, never knowing any better.

What are those external qualifiers, and what is it that renders them "good"?

Yes, of course this is the case. This is also why we have wars. What is good to me may prove to be not good to you. When this involves property lines sooner or later people tend to become nasty about it. Same with certain aspects of who is in control (the whole geo-political sphere)

External qualifiers like the league of nations, UN, NAFTA and the EU all tend to attempt to address this. With such a dizzying array of concerns, what we experience as "good" still seems fairly universal:

(Ecc 8:15) "Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun."

It being a given that injustice nor invasion interrupt this.

 

[Casual Observer]

Now, I'm not a reductive materialist, but a monist.

Like this? "Monism is a philosophical position which argues that the variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance. The wide definition states that all existing things go back to a source which is distinct from them. The common, restricted definition implies also a unity of substance and essence." [From the wiki]

This is exactly creationism, if one merely allows that the "single reality or substance" is God. Seems to work just fine with pantheism too?

THAT is what the "self" is like: not a delusion, but a construct that creates the illusion of permanence and singularity, even though it consists of many shifting parts.

Your description here also agrees with Scripture. Some difficult and disturbing parts, even. To whit I might summarize by quoting Cheryl Crowe: change will do you (us) good.

 

[Crandaddy]

In my metaphysical system, goodness is what is known as a transcendental of being. The transcendentals are properties of being qua being (i.e. before it is divided into generic and specific categories). Transcendentals are convertible with being, meaning that to what extent something has being, it also has each of the transcendentals of being to that same extent. Thus, since goodness is a transcendental of being, to what extent something has being, it is also good to that same extent.

God is to be understood as good in the sense that he's the absolute ground and source of all being (as well as each of the transcendentals of being, including goodness). For something to exist apart from God is for it to derive its existence from God, and to be ordered to him as its ultimate final cause insofar as it exists.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Like this? "Monism is a philosophical position which argues that the variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance. The wide definition states that all existing things go back to a source which is distinct from them. The common, restricted definition implies also a unity of substance and essence." [From the wiki]

This is exactly creationism, if one merely allows that the "single reality or substance" is God.

Actually, no, it is not. Creationism can easily accommodate dualism.

Of course, a creationist could be a monist if he takes the position that we are made out of "God stuff" or are "part of God". But we are definitely straying into pantheist territory here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tayla]

I suppose it is save to say that we all believe in the intrinsic good of whatever moral code we embrace, and perceive ourselves as agents of positive values (as defined by our respective religions and world views).

But how do you (or your religion) define goodness? What renders it good?

Even atheists (for example) offer principles for a moral code based on, usually, a utilitarian notion of doing things that help others and not doing things that hurt others. But this assumes, I think, a universal value that good is better than bad. No one wants a society in which everyone is bad and, in fact, such a society would disintegrate. Therefore, seems to me that reality has a built in preference for "the good", call it God if you will.

Good and bad are not equal and opposite manifestations of the same thing, a yin-yang, if you will. Bad is a corruption of the good. Good is, well,... good.

 

[juvenissun]

I suppose it is save to say that we all believe in the intrinsic good of whatever moral code we embrace, and perceive ourselves as agents of positive values (as defined by our respective religions and world views).

But how do you (or your religion) define goodness? What renders it good?
Monotheistic religions tend to merely conflate their deity with goodness, point to scriptural passages where this deity claims to be good, or else just equate power with goodness (Calvinism, I'm looking at you).
In that case, how do you evaluate goodness? How do you determine whether what that deity supposedly claims is correct? What, in short, are the criteria for something to be perceived as good?

-n ... -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 , 3, ...n
Good is the status which is > 0
For example:
-1 --> pain; no good.
1 --> no pain. good.
2 --> happy; good.
-2 --> unhappy. no good.
3 --> good. good
4 --> better. good
5 --> still better. good.
...
n --> God. Good.
-n+m (n>m) --> satan. Bad.
etc.

 

[anonymous person]

I suppose it is save to say that we all believe in the intrinsic good of whatever moral code we embrace, and perceive ourselves as agents of positive values (as defined by our respective religions and world views).

But how do you (or your religion) define goodness? What renders it good?
Monotheistic religions tend to merely conflate their deity with goodness, point to scriptural passages where this deity claims to be good, or else just equate power with goodness (Calvinism, I'm looking at you).
In that case, how do you evaluate goodness? How do you determine whether what that deity supposedly claims is correct? What, in short, are the criteria for something to be perceived as good?

This subject is the main subject of my current research as an undergrad in philosophy of religion. I was planning on getting around to a discussion of it over on our worldview discussion thread. However, I do think the subject is so important that it demands a section of its own, hence my joy in seeing you have made one!