Define good

[Thanatos]

So often people characterize things as either right or wrong. Google's dictionary function defines evil firstly as "morally bad or wrong", but this is rather vacuous because moral is such a loaded and subjective word.

For the record, I voted the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.

[Osborn F Enready]

Good is an "individually subjective" term.

One persons good is another persons bad.

[HelioPrime]

Good is treatment of yourself and others.

It doesn't matter where you are, something such as beating a child to death is wrong.

[Osborn F Enready]

Helio, there are many common agreements on what is right or wrong, to a majority and minority of people.

I am just pointing out how it is fools game to attempt to assign an "objective definition" to a "subjective term".

If you ask someone "what is good about x", they will give you a subjective opinion.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Good is an "individually subjective" term. One persons good is another persons bad.

Just because there isn't a well-defined right answer here doesn't mean you aren't allowed to have an opinion.

[Cephus]

Quote by: HelioPrime It doesn't matter where you are, something such as beating a child to death is wrong.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but why? How do you know that beating a child to death is wrong? What makes it wrong?

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Cephus Just playing devil's advocate here, but why? How do you know that beating a child to death is wrong? What makes it wrong?

That depends on your epistemology which depends on your metaphysics. If you hold human life as a value. Beating a human to death is wrong.

[Objectivist]

Hmmm... I swore I clicked the "other" bubble. But it said I clicked there is no such thing...

[Cephus]

Quote by: Objectivist That depends on your epistemology which depends on your metaphysics. If you hold human life as a value. Beating a human to death is wrong.

But that still makes it a subjective call, which was the point I was making. There is nothing that makes it objectively wrong, it's just opinion, even if it's a widely-held opinion.

[FenianKiwi]

Good and evil exist only by comparison.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Thanatos For the record, I voted the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.

That's called utilitarianism if anyone's wondering.

Quote by: wiki Utilitarianism is the ethical doctrine that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome—the ends justify the means. Utility — the good to be maximized — has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus suffering or pain), though preference utilitarians like Peter Singer define it as the satisfaction of preferences.

Inverse or negative utilitarianism tries to minimize overall pain for the greatest amount of people.

Which is better?

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Good is an "individually subjective" term. One persons good is another persons bad.

So you're saying there is no definition of Good? Then does good exist? Of course not.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: FenianKiwi Good and evil exist only by comparison.

comparison of what?

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer That's called utilitarianism if anyone's wondering. Inverse or negative utilitarianism tries to minimize overall pain for the greatest amount of people. Which is better?

Meh, I prefer to make it up as I go along. Its more fun that way.

I'd say that utilitarianism wins out over inverse utilitarianism. Practically speaking I think they're the same and generally compatible, but I've read Brave New World. Merely reducing pain is not guaranteed to make people happy after a point, and if you carry it a logical iteration past Huxley you have mass suicide.

[Osborn F Enready]

Suburbanite said: So you're saying there is no definition of Good? Then does good exist? Of course not.

I didn't say there was NO definition... I said the definition is subjective, and different for every individual to some degree.

What is good for you, may not be good to others. Its a matter of INDIVIDUAL values.

Suburbanite said: comparison of what?

Without good, there would be no bad.
Without bad, there could be no good.

Its all a matter of individual perspective and values.

[Suburbanite]

Okay, a definition, by definition, has to actually describe something. If that "something" is inconsistent to the point where it can actually be its own opposite, then there isn't anything concrete being described.
The definition of the word good can not be "something which is different for everybody." If the definition of a triangle was "a shape...up to your own interpretations" then we wouldn't have the pyramids. We'd have a pyramid, a kind of rectangle looking thing, maybe even a trapezoid!
I'll I'm getting at is this: we need to watch our language. We can't use such sloppy definitions or words to describe our world.
Some pragmatic questions:
1. Does describing things as "good" actually do any good?
2. Can we function as a people and society without the concepts?
3. Does the polarization of ethics (in that all things fall somewhere on a spectrum between good and bad, or evil) hurt people?

About the whole "good only exists in comparison to evil" weird taoist eastern thing....I know, there can't be something without nothing. But hear this--while we may apply these dichotomous attributes it doesn't mean they correspond to nature. Nature, that is world without language, has no good or bad. So what is it saying of us that we attribute undefinable imaginary characteristics to real things.

[samsara15]

Good is whatever is defined as good by the culture, or sub-culture, we live in. Many societies over many centuries have defined Good differently. However, we all have our own personal definition of Good, which is based on the subset of various influences which have made us the person we are.

[Vee]

Thanatos, What is the difference between what is Right and what is Good?

[FenianKiwi]

Quote by: Suburbanite comparison of what?

Comparison of acts in relation to one another. Theft is generally considered as an 'evil' act. Stealing medicine to help a desperate ill child is a good act. Of course, if the theft of the medicine to save a child denied the medicine to other people who will die as a result, the net effect of the theft becomes evil. And so on and so on and so on.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: samsara15 Good is whatever is defined as good by the culture, or sub-culture, we live in. Many societies over many centuries have defined Good differently. However, we all have our own personal definition of Good, which is based on the subset of various influences which have made us the person we are.

Thats where this conversation was at about 10 posts ago. What we're talking about now is your relativist mushy definition substantial enough to even constitute a definition.

Quote by: FenianKiwi Comparison of acts in relation to one another. Theft is generally considered as an 'evil' act. Stealing medicine to help a desperate ill child is a good act. Of course, if the theft of the medicine to save a child denied the medicine to other people who will die as a result, the net effect of the theft becomes evil. And so on and so on and so on.

I think real life hardly works that mathematically perfect. This isn't a utilitarian society we live it, its a free society. And what do you mean "generally considered"? Isn't appeal to popularity a logical fallacy anyways? Just because everyone thinks murder is wrong doesn't mean it is intrinsically wrong, thats just what everyone is saying. You can't infer any MORALITY from any situation because its inessential. Its like talking about God, or the Soul, its just a phantom concept.
Good is a word used to oppress the masses. Politicians, businessmen, drug dealers. They're all trying to sell you on their definition of Good and Evil.
There are entire professions based solely on good vs bad. A judge. A congressmen, a lobbyist, a cop, a preacher, an artist, a storyteller, a president, a parent. In a world of false prophets...