Define good

[Osborn F Enready]

Suburbanite said: Deival is the only one talking about a concrete definition of good and evil, God.

YEA! As if that is concrete.... LOL. Come on burb, thats too funny.

[Suburbanite]

Well, just AS concrete!

[Winter wind]

There is no absolute right or wrong, but the closest you can get is what is good for all (not just humanity.)
To work for the betterment of everything is the closest to good you will ever get.

[ruksak]

I would think that in order to define good, one must be able to define evil. These are polar opposites. So to correctly define what is good we just need to look at what is the opposite evil. Injecting biblical morals into this discussion is quite improper.

Example; Abortion. Using traditional biblical morals, abortion is evil; it is not good.

What if the woman was raped and impregnated by an insane crackhead? Or perhaps the baby is malformed to such a degree that the child will live only a brief tortured existence? Still the religion says the abortion is evil. But cut the religious standards away from it, and we can now say that abortion is good in this instance.

But what if religion was never a part of the calculation? Is it "good" for a 15 year old mother because now she can live a normal life and have a better chance to be successful? Yes, it is good for the mother. But what of the baby? No, it was not good for the baby.

Using this thinking it is obvious to me that when considering an action to be good, one must consider all parties involved. If it is good for all than it is "good".

Quote by: Winter wind There is no absolute right or wrong, but the closest you can get is what is good for all (not just humanity.) To work for the betterment of everything is the closest to good you will ever get.

This is the only logical conclusion.


I believe there is undeniable truth to this conclusion. With this truth is a harsh fact. Many of the things we do, the decisions we make, are only Good for some and cannot be good for all. War for example fits this criteria. The end of the Vietnam war; How about that? That was good for some and horrifying for others. So was it good? Was it evil? Neither! It just "was". When a mother of an American soldier got the news that her boy was coming home because the war is over; It is good. But only within the microcosm of the lives that benefit from it. Across the pond in Vietnam other families were being massacred because that soldier was no longer there. So it was not good. It just "was".

[Cephus]

Quote by: Suburbanite I agree with Dieval. Good and evil come from the Bible and are moral parameters strictly designed for theists and believers in ultimate truth. With an absolute truth, only then does good/evil make any sense. Deival is the only one talking about a concrete definition of good and evil, God.

Then Deival would need to demonstrate that this entity, God, actually exists. Otherwise, he's just back to talking opinion.

[Winter wind]

No he doesn't Cephus.
If you want to argue the existence of God, there are many other threads. In the meantime, he is free to say what he wants about his faith opinion.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Winter wind There is no absolute right or wrong

Are you absolutely right there's not absolute right or wrong?

[Winter wind]

And i was defending you....

Good point though. But I know there is an absolute truth. Say what you will about morals, truth is singular and constant. I find it true that morals are a construct of humans (or God) that differ from person to person. A person may have absolute rights and wrongs, but others will agree. There is no universal right or wrong (unless you say God, and even he said to get in the other guy's shoes.)

[Dieval]

Quote by: Winter wind And i was defending you....

Thanks for the defense :)

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Wind There is no absolute right or wrong, but the closest you can get is what is good for all (not just humanity.) To work for the betterment of everything is the closest to good you will ever get.

You say there is no absolute good, but then you suggest a way of moving towards an absolute good. How can you move towards something which doesn't exist?

[J. Askiloupos]

An interesting illustration of the concept of good and evil is the statement made by the Satan character in Milton's Paradise Lost where he says that Yahwe's good has become his evil. Good and evil are, for the most part, perception- as many others have said on this same thread. The good of one may very well be the evil of another.

[Osborn F Enready]

The very first and most critical point of human cooperation, is mutual respect for others values.

Until people realize that good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust are matters of subjective perception, human cooperation will suffer.

Humans are individuals, therefore have individual values. The obvious answer is to have society allow the most individual freedom, to realize the maximum amount of individual peace, drawing a basic line of individual rights and freedoms. This allows each person to practice their own values, live their life as they see fit on the condition of mutual respect for all values, all beliefs, all ideolgies, etc.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Winter wind No he doesn't Cephus. If you want to argue the existence of God, there are many other threads. In the meantime, he is free to say what he wants about his faith opinion.

If all he's got is an opinion, then it's not worth debating, and this happens to be a DEBATE forum. Otherwise, all you'd have are people making empty claims with no support whatsoever.

We have enough of that already.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Winter wind Good point though. But I know there is an absolute truth. Say what you will about morals, truth is singular and constant. I find it true that morals are a construct of humans (or God) that differ from person to person. A person may have absolute rights and wrongs, but others will agree. There is no universal right or wrong (unless you say God, and even he said to get in the other guy's shoes.)

No, you BELIEVE there is an absolute truth. If you're going to claim knowledge, I'm going to have to ask you to back up how you came by that knowledge, which requires you to defend your sources.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The very first and most critical point of human cooperation, is mutual respect for others values. Until people realize that good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust are matters of subjective perception, human cooperation will suffer. Humans are individuals, therefore have individual values. The obvious answer is to have society allow the most individual freedom, to realize the maximum amount of individual peace, drawing a basic line of individual rights and freedoms. This allows each person to practice their own values, live their life as they see fit on the condition of mutual respect for all values, all beliefs, all ideolgies, etc.

You must see that not "values" are created equal.
Hypothetically, if one society were to regularly partake in cannibalism, why should their values be equal to our values which say that canibalism is a crime?

[Osborn F Enready]

Dieval said: You must see that not "values" are created equal.

No, I don't, as long as the values in question are limited TO the individual and affect only their life directly.

Deival said: Hypothetically, if one society were to regularly partake in cannibalism, why should their values be equal to our values which say that canibalism is a crime?

In order for cannibalism to exist, there either has to be individuals "voluntarily agreeing to be food for others", or individual rights must be infringed. There is NO other way for cannibalism to exist.

Those who violate the rights of others, have no entitlement to respect for their values, as their values depend on the violation of the rights of others.

If this group you speak of hypothetically, has volunteers to be food, I would have no problem with it at all. If they VIOLATE the rights of others to attain food, they are breaking the only bond of value people hold to society, which is public trust in equality under the law to attain justice.

Force is only acceptable in defense under a "just" system.

[Ken Carman]

I know this is going to be real vague, but it does depend upon the situation, and often has to be decided on an individualistic basis.

Given that caveat let's start...

1. What will do the least harm or have the most benefit for the most people as long as...

2. The most people benefiting aren't, oh let's say Nazis being able to locate more Jews.

3. I use "benefit" not in the financial sense but emotionally, spiritually... loosely defined, physically and mentally.

4. Compromise if it helps to clarify the situation and helps you, and others, learn more about themselves. But if compromise simply rewards those who will ask for more and not give an inch themselves... then not compromising is "good."

5. Never take the blame for what others have done, and you have not... unless you assess that those who are attempting to pass on such blame have evil intent, or that the "evil" the other has done is not "evil" but "good," and you think it best if they continue. Essentially sacrificing oneself is good only if it serves the greater good. If it rewards those who may continue down a questionable path it doesn't matter if they are your brother, your friend or a live interest... taking their blame usually only makes things worse.

This is a short list I came up with in just a few seconds, but I think about it some more as the thread continues.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready In order for cannibalism to exist, there either has to be individuals "voluntarily agreeing to be food for others", or individual rights must be infringed. There is NO other way for cannibalism to exist. Those who violate the rights of others, have no entitlement to respect for their values, as their values depend on the violation of the rights of others. If this group you speak of hypothetically, has volunteers to be food, I would have no problem with it at all. If they VIOLATE the rights of others to attain food, they are breaking the only bond of value people hold to society, which is public trust in equality under the law to attain justice. Force is only acceptable in defense under a "just" system.

But we're not talking about a '"Just" system'...we're talking about "good", and if whether one thing that's acceptable or "good" in one society is acceptable or "good" in another society and values being equal. You're also adding "rights" to the equation, which were not mentioned prior. Rights are given by people. Not all people have the same rights and since we didn't lay down what the rights of these fictional people are, you can't mix this in to your answer in the above scenario.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Cephus Then Deival would need to demonstrate that this entity, God, actually exists. Otherwise, he's just back to talking opinion.

He is going to have the same hard to proving God exists as you have proving Good and Evil exist.
Good is imperceivable. There is no physical object that is "good". Good is a value judgment, for example like calling someone greedy, or egotistical. But when you describe those terms there is a set of standard behaviors you can assess to determine weather one is in fact greedy or egotistical. There are no standard behaviors for being "good". Its a plethora of idiosyncratic, relative, contingent factors that can vary to such a degree as to mean its own opposite.
Worse of all, we have this retarded legal system based on this whole good/evil thing. I mean, substance abuse, suicide, prostitution, and assisted suicide are all legally contested because people believe they are "evil". Jim crow laws... obviously some white people thought these laws were "good". What if, instead, laws were only made to help minimize human suffering and human financial loss. (theft and violence, thats it)

[Jack]

On a scale from absolute worst to absolute best, good is just to the absolute best side of the line that denotes neither worst or best...slightly above average. :)