Why Is This A Problem???

[zippy2006]

Things function they way they do. Sometimes I like that function. Sometimes I like the things I get because of that function. That doesn't imply the function is "good".

Here is Aquinas, with his definition of 'good' bolded:

Now a certain order is to be found in those things that are apprehended universally. For that which, before aught else, falls under apprehension, is "being," the notion of which is included in all things whatsoever a man apprehends. Wherefore the first indemonstrable principle is that "the same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time," which is based on the notion of "being" and "not-being": and on this principle all others are based, as is stated in Metaph. iv, text. 9. Now as "being" is the first thing that falls under the apprehension simply, so "good" is the first thing that falls under the apprehension of the practical reason, which is directed to action: since every agent acts for an end under the aspect of good. Consequently the first principle of practical reason is one founded on the notion of good, viz. that "good is that which all things seek after." Hence this is the first precept of law, that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." All other precepts of the natural law are based upon this: so that whatever the practical reason naturally apprehends as man's good (or evil) belongs to the precepts of the natural law as something to be done or avoided.

-ST IaIIae, q. 94, a. 2

What is good for something depends on what kind of thing it is. Beef is good for humans and grass is good for cows. Since good is that which all things seek after, cows seek after grass via their instinctual desires. But since humans are rational animals we seek the good with our reason and will. That is, we seek after nourishment through our desire mediated by reason. Beef farms, that is.

Just as the propagation of the species is a latent desire found in animals, human reason can also identify and act on such goods as these (common goods) even to the point of sacrificing their own private good for the sake of the common good.

 

[partinobodycular]

Just as the propagation of the species is a latent desire found in animals, human reason can also identify and act on such goods as these (common goods) even to the point of sacrificing their own private good for the sake of the common good.

But if all things naturally seek after good, then of what additional benefit is reason?

 

[Tinker Grey]

But if all things naturally seek after good, then of what additional benefit is reason?

Perhaps post hoc rationalization reinforces beneficial behavior.

 

[zippy2006]

But if all things naturally seek after good, then of what additional benefit is reason?

Reason is natural to human beings, and we seek the good precisely in that way, namely, rationally. This is a descriptive claim; it is merely describing what human beings are and how they act. We don't customarily chase down a gazelle and tear into its neck with our incisors. We use bows, and guns, and strategy to obtain the natural good of nutrition. The modern grocery store is a far-advanced form of the way we reason in order to achieve goals.

That said, reason obviously is beneficial. It's why we are the dominant species on planet Earth.

 

[RDKirk]

But if all things naturally seek after good, then of what additional benefit is reason?

By reason humans conceive and pursue an unapparent good.

 

[partinobodycular]

That said, reason obviously is beneficial. It's why we are the dominant species on planet Earth.

So it would seem that the sole benefit of the ability to reason, is self preservation. Specifically, man's self preservation. To the passenger pigeon, man's ability to reason is anything but good. So "good" would seem to be a very egocentric idea. "Good" is that which benefits me.

In the big picture, man's ability to reason hasn't really increased the overall good. It's been beneficial for a few, and detrimental to many. So the question still exists, if nature naturally seeks the good anyway, of what additional benefit is reason?

 

[durangodawood]

But if all things naturally seek after good, then of what additional benefit is reason?

Enables us to be better at securing good things.

 

[zippy2006]

So it would seem that the sole benefit of the ability to reason, is self preservation. Specifically, man's self preservation. To the passenger pigeon, man's ability to reason is anything but good. So "good" would seem to be a very egocentric idea. "Good" is that which benefits me.

Remember what I said at the outset?:

What is good for something depends on what kind of thing it is. Beef is good for humans and grass is good for cows.

In the big picture, man's ability to reason hasn't really increased the overall good. It's been beneficial for a few, and detrimental to many. So the question still exists, if nature naturally seeks the good anyway, of what additional benefit is reason?

You will have to give your own definition of good before I know what you are talking about or what you are asking.

 

[durangodawood]

Here is Aquinas, with his definition of 'good' bolded:



What is good for something depends on what kind of thing it is. Beef is good for humans and grass is good for cows. Since good is that which all things seek after, cows seek after grass via their instinctual desires. But since humans are rational animals we seek the good with our reason and will. That is, we seek after nourishment through our desire mediated by reason. Beef farms, that is.

Just as the propagation of the species is a latent desire found in animals, human reason can also identify and act on such goods as these (common goods) even to the point of sacrificing their own private good for the sake of the common good.

That Aquinas definition is surprising to me, from a person I thought was defending the divine order of things.

I thought intrinsic good was a key feature of that order. Instead he presents a relative/functional notion of good.

 

[partinobodycular]

By reason humans conceive and pursue an unapparent good

Ah, but lacking omniscience, in seeking the unapparent good, isn't one at risk of incurring the unapparent evil? Nature always works toward the greater good, we on the other hand, with our reason, would seem to be a very poor substitute.

 

[zippy2006]

That Aquinas definition is surprising to me, from a person I thought was defending the divine order of things.

I thought intrinsic good was a key feature of that order. Instead he presents a relative/functional notion of good.

I'm mostly in this thread to talk to Orel, but any definition of good which fails to attend to valuations of the subject will fail, and as long as God ordered creatures' desires in such a way that they point towards the objective good (being, truth, love, etc.) then there won't be some sort of gulf between desires and the divine good. That is to say, our desires ultimately lead to God himself, who is the ultimate desire of all creation.

 

[partinobodycular]

You will have to give your own definition of good before I know what you are talking about or what you are asking.

That's a very difficult question to answer. When you're young you have this naive concept of some universal notion of "good". But as you get older you hopefully begin to realize that "good" is a very subjective thing. What seems good to me, may not seem good to someone or something else, and what entitles me to be the self-appointed arbiter of good?

In lieu of this lack of objectivity in the definition of "good", men appoint God. But as you and Aquinas have already pointed out, such a universal arbiter already exists...it's nature. All things by nature, tend toward the good. They tend toward survival.

So it would seem to me, that if one desires an ultimate arbiter of good, it's nature. And if one desires an ultimate definition of good, it's that which leads to survival.

 

[Ken-1122]

If you pull the lever you are actively killing a person. If you do not pull the lever you are not.

No, the one person standing on the tracks will hear the trolley coming and is free to move out of the way; the 5 people tied up don't have the option to move. Pull the lever and nobody gets hurt

 

[zippy2006]

That's a very difficult question to answer. When you're young you have this naive concept of some universal notion of "good". But as you get older you hopefully begin to realize that "good" is a very subjective thing. What seems good to me, may not seem good to someone or something else, and what entitles me to be the self-appointed arbiter of good?

In lieu of this lack of objectivity in the definition of "good", men appoint God. But as you and Aquinas have already pointed out, such a universal arbiter already exists...it's nature. All things by nature, tend toward the good. They tend toward survival.

So it would seem to me, that if one desires an ultimate arbiter of good, it's nature. And if one desires an ultimate definition of good, it's that which leads to survival.

Okay. Perhaps I should clarify that Thomistic axiology does not see survival as the final end that grounds all motivation, but survival is a very obvious and fundamental end so it serves as a good example. Of course in the age of Evolution it is often taken as the final end in itself.

Anyway, let's apply your definition to your previous post:

In the big picture, man's ability to reason hasn't really increased the overall good. It's been beneficial for a few, and detrimental to many.

I'm not sure how it could be said that reason has not furthered the good conceived of as survival. Humans have flourished as no other species has.

An environmentalist might argue that it is precisely man--the rational animal--that is destroying his environment and therefore endangering his survival. Thus if it is thought that reason will lead to man's extinction then it will not have been good.

When you contrast the few to the many in that last sentence, are you referring to humans or to species generally?

So the question still exists, if nature naturally seeks the good anyway, of what additional benefit is reason?

You keep raising this question of "the benefit of reason." I don't believe I've argued for the benefit of reason, so I'm not sure why you are putting the question to me. Of course I think it is beneficial (in achieving one's goals) but I haven't argued for such a thing in this thread...?

But to answer your question, if "good" is defined in terms of survival, then reason is beneficial precisely because it significantly aids survival. So on your definition reason is undoubtedly beneficial.

 

[Moral Orel]

What is good for something depends on what kind of thing it is. Beef is good for humans and grass is good for cows. Since good is that which all things seek after, cows seek after grass via their instinctual desires. But since humans are rational animals we seek the good with our reason and will. That is, we seek after nourishment through our desire mediated by reason. Beef farms, that is.

It sounds like you're going backwards from our last talk. If something is really and truly good, then shouldn't all things seek it? If we're going to separate things into kinds, where is the correct place to draw the line between them? What about different kinds of humans?

Before, we were looking for something more fundamental, such as pleasure/happiness and (perhaps) the avoidance of pain/suffering. Nourishment would be a second order type of thing because it is a thing that gives us happiness; and beef/grass would be a third order type of thing because it is a thing that gives us nourishment which in turn gives us happiness. Seems to me the moment you add, "depends on kind", the whole "all things" blows up.

 

[Moral Orel]

All things by nature, tend toward the good. They tend toward survival.

But this isn't true. Some folk want to stop surviving. Why are they incorrect to seek death via suicide?

 

[Bradskii]

You will have to give your own definition of good before I know what you are talking about or what you are asking.

You just gave your definition of good upstream - as per Aquinas. But now you are asking for a personal definition?

 

[partinobodycular]

I'm not sure how it could be said that reason has not furthered the good conceived of as survival. Humans have flourished as no other species has.

This is where we need to go back and examine the original premise and then the original question.

The original premise is Aquinas':

"good is that which all things seek after."

So all things...everything...everywhere...is seeking the good, and the good is "being", aka survival.

The question then is:

But if all things naturally seek after good, then of what additional benefit is reason?

Humanity is simply doing what everything else is doing. From cows, to whales, to Covid-19 viruses. They're all trying to survive using any and all means possible. But remember, they're all seeking the same good. They're all fighting the same fight, every one of them. And humanity, with its high and mighty reasoning is of no greater value to the attainment of this good than the cow or the Covid-19 virus.

Reasoning doesn't bring anything else to the table except another means of killing. So of what benefit is it, what greater good does it achieve that can't be achieved without it?

 

[partinobodycular]

But this isn't true. Some folk want to stop surviving. Why are they incorrect to seek death via suicide?

I was only referring to Aquinas' definition of good, as that which all things seek after, specifically, being. Personally, I have my own subjective definition of good, but unfortunately it's neither easily codified nor transferable. Being is good, but suffering isn't, and suicide occurs when one overwhelms the other. And it's not my right to judge when that is.

 

[Torah Keeper]

If you do not pull the lever you are letting 5 people die to save one. If you pull it you let one person die to save 5.

It is the same situation as if 2 buildings are on fire on opposite sides of town. 5 people are trapped in one building, 1 person is trapped in another. Which building should the fire department go to first?