How does anyone know whats right(Aka:what is the good)

@Zetetic11235,

I haven't thought about this yet, but I know I will have to eventually. I try to frame the question like this...

Is good good?

@as0l0,

Zetetic11235,

The problem is that we don't know what "the good" is. We have no means of checking. Our standing in reality is not valid to understand that because we are a part of it so we cannot judge in an impartial manner. Apart from that having a judgement of "the good" means to have a "rulebase" on how to act. By having that one loses sight of many things. Such a "rulebase" becomes like a "goal" to aim ones actions to.

By thinking of such "goal" one often loses sight of what one is doing. The crusades, for instance, are a result of the judgement that it would be "good" if "the holy land" would be in Christian hands. Such judgements are often called "hypothetical" in ethics.

This c reates for the difficulty that we do not know at all how to behave. I guess we just have to learn as we go along. To me what is important is not to act in a way I know I would not like myself if treated in such a way. Immanuel Kant has formulated just such a "categorical imperative". It comes down to acting only in such a way that we would like to be treated ourselves. That way at least we would not act in a way of which we know we would not like ourselves. It "filters" all which we know is not very nice. If at a later time we learn there are more things that we do not like ourselves we can change our behavior towards others in an instant. The "rulebase" of the categorical imperative is completely flexible and personal in that way.

Hope this helps.

@Zetetic11235,

What is good?... and how do we know it's good? Hmm... great question!

I like to take a simple approach. Good is the example that Nature gives us with Balance and Love. If we look at nature and look closely, balance is shown throughout. So if we work together with Nature, wouldn't that be good?

Right and wrong seem to be easy to figure out when we look to nature. Love is something you also see in nature so I'd have to assume that love is good. From experience I've learned that if you give Love freely, love is given back and that seems to be good.

Arjen, there is a way of checking whether it's good or bad we just ignore it. Nature shows us what is good but we don't work with nature. We would rather try to dominate nature and dominate our fellow man. This has proven not to work, therefore being bad.

Quote:

I guess we just have to learn as we go along. To me what is important is not to act in a way I know I would not like myself if treated in such a way. Immanuel Kant has formulated just such a "categorical imperative". It comes down to acting only in such a way that we would like to be treated ourselves.

Correct. We are evolving to understand that we treat others how we would like to be treated.... But it goes further than that simple statement. Some of us like to be treated bad maybe because we don't know of any other way to treat people. We treat ourselves bad which is how others treat us.

All this moves us back to Balance. One of the most important words that man has. Forget everything else if we may and only concentrate on Balance and when and if we do, balance is all we need. Balance is Good! We know this because if any of our systems become out of balance, it's bad. Whether it be our checkbooks, diets or tires on our cars... everything in nature is balanced and that's where man falls short. Balance is good!

Love is good because because hate is not. Love actually creates balance. It's a funny thing but I see this everywhere, even with my own family and my dogs and cat. Love creates Balance! Balance is Good! Anything that is not in balance with nature, is not good. Seems easy enough to understand.

Those are my thoughts on it. Great thread, let's keep this one going.

@Justin,

Hi Y'all!! Smile

Right or wrong, good or bad are linked back to the welfare of ones self, one's biology. On a societal level it is linked back to the health of the body politic, linked further back, it is the welfare of each individual member of the body politic. Right, wrong good and bad, are connotations of Good and bad health, it is what is good for me, literally, or good for the group, as the body politic---Nobody knows the trouble I've seen, Nobody knows my sorrow---!! Very Happy

only "A" body knows!! Wink

@Justin,

Hi Justin, Smile

Justin wrote:

Arjen, there is a way of checking whether it's good or bad we just ignore it. Nature shows us what is good but we don't work with nature. We would rather try to dominate nature and dominate our fellow man. This has proven not to work, therefore being bad.

What one sees in nature is dependent on what one thinks one sees. Although I, personally, believe that balance is a nice thing, it does not have much to do with learning this from nature. Most people think "survival of the fittest" exists in nature. That couter argues balance any day. Humanity is proving it as we speak (unfortunately).

Quote:

Correct. We are evolving to understand that we treat others how we would like to be treated.... But it goes further than that simple statement. Some of us like to be treated bad maybe because we don't know of any other way to treat people. We treat ourselves bad which is how others treat us.

Do you realise that Kant uses the categorical imperative as a means to accomplish moral skepticism?

Quote:

All this moves us back to Balance. One of the most important words that man has. Forget everything else if we may and only concentrate on Balance and when and if we do, balance is all we need. Balance is Good! We know this because if any of our systems become out of balance, it's bad. Whether it be our checkbooks, diets or tires on our cars... everything in nature is balanced and that's where man falls short. Balance is good!

So, if a certain unnamed species (guess which..) is creating a great unbalace, it would be "good" te re-establish the balance, right? -Genocide would now be "good"?

Quote:

Love is good because because hate is not. Love actually creates balance. It's a funny thing but I see this everywhere, even with my own family and my dogs and cat. Love creates Balance! Balance is Good! Anything that is not in balance with nature, is not good. Seems easy enough to understand.

Have you ever heard of crimes passionel?

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

What one sees in nature is dependent on what one thinks one sees. Although I, personally, believe that balance is a nice thing, it does not have much to do with learning this from nature. Most people think "survival of the fittest" exists in nature. That couter argues balance any day. Humanity is proving it as we speak (unfortunately).

It's more than a nice thing so I'm going to disagree with you here. The earth is balanced. The stars are balanced. Our solar system is balanced. The engine in our car is balanced. Acid and alkaline balance. We try to get our skin balanced ph. Our diets balanced, our heart rate.. balanced. If balance is not a law predominant in nature, them I'm going need a real good explanation on how it cannot be seen when balance is what nature does. To my knowledge, there is no counter argument to balance just as there is no greater force than that of balance. As far as survival of the fittest?... do you really see that? I certainly don't. Nature is a system of balance. Just because a frog eats a fly, doesn't mean survival of the fittest.

Think for a moment of all the things in this world that require balance and then think of what happens when anything is out of balance. Balance = good. Unbalance = bad.

Arjen wrote:

Do you realise that Kant uses the categorical imperative as a means to accomplish moral skepticism?

Not sure because I don't really study Kant or any other philosopher for that matter. I'm more of it is or it aint kind of guy with a simple approach to philosophy. I could study philosophers and science til I'm blue in the face but universal knowledge is something I can never obtain from another philosopher. It's more about the experience and living of it.

Arjen wrote:

So, if a certain unnamed species (guess which..) is creating a great unbalace, it would be "good" te re-establish the balance, right? -Genocide would now be "good"?

LOL. Genocide? Do you think? NO. We don't need to kill each other as balance is a law in nature. As these unnamed species create imbalance, you can bet you're sweet bippie nature is going to bring it back into balance. It's not man that will bring man to his knees, nature will. Smile

Arjen wrote:

Have you ever heard of crimes passion?

Sure, but what does that have to do with anything that I've said?

@boagie,

I will take a crack at this.
There are many facets of truth, the more promoting a venue, the more viable it is considered to be. If a system of morals is backed not only by some silly aesthetic view and pushed foreward by only one kind of dogmatism but rather also backed by scientific truth and a second sort of silly dogmatism, it is considered more viable. One can construct a system of morals from natureal law and back it up with scientific truth. The golden rule can easily be tied into survival instinct thusly: One has the instinct to survive, one lives on through his or her children and work. If one commits an action which violates anothers children or work, one allows for said action to be commited to him. Thus kant's categorical imperative. For this to be true, two main conditions must be met, 1) All members of society must work and reproduce or be excluded from society, 2)The members of the society must realize how interconnected their survival is, they must see that through passing of genetic inforation they live on and by killing anyone they threaten their own survival. This system holds no universal truth but contains shades of two types of truth and relies on social conditioning. Good must be based on certain assumptions with no structural integrety. These truths are but pillars of sand erected in seas of uncertainity continually melting in the wake of realization and built up by forgeting dogmatism.

@Justin,

Justin wrote:

It's more than a nice thing so I'm going to disagree with you here. The earth is balanced. The stars are balanced. Our solar system is balanced. The engine in our car is balanced. Acid and alkaline balance. We try to get our skin balanced ph. Our diets balanced, our heart rate.. balanced. If balance is not a law predominant in nature, them I'm going need a real good explanation on how it cannot be seen when balance is what nature does. To my knowledge, there is no counter argument to balance just as there is no greater force than that of balance. As far as survival of the fittest?... do you really see that? I certainly don't. Nature is a system of balance. Just because a frog eats a fly, doesn't mean survival of the fittest.

Think for a moment of all the things in this world that require balance and then think of what happens when anything is out of balance. Balance = good. Unbalance = bad.

Actually I have been having a prolonged discussion with Pyth where I am arguing that survival of the fittest is a thought object and does not exist as an object in nature. Most of the mods seem to think that "science" has pinpointed it though and it is not open for discussion. But I know better.

The point I was making was not one of validity; it was that one can see in nature what one wants to see. To me a strong argument against (physical) balance is the fact that all matter is drifting away in different directions in quite a rapid manner. It also poses some other scientific quistions, but that may be important for another time.

Quote:

Not sure because I don't really study Kant or any other philosopher for that matter. I'm more of it is or it aint kind of guy with a simple approach to philosophy. I could study philosophers and science til I'm blue in the face but universal knowledge is something I can never obtain from another philosopher. It's more about the experience and living of it.

I am very proud of you. I agree wholeheartedly. I did it the same way. I have also decided that I would have liked to have been pointed in the right direction. I think that some peopel want that too. So, I point things out to people and if they do not like to be pointed in a direction by me I stop. Actually it is the entire reason for my formal studies. I am busy writing some papers that will shake several areas to the foundations I think. Then again, people need to want to listen.

Anyway, Kant is a moral skepticist, which he argues from the difference between his categoria and his judgements. The cat. imp is a way of bridging the gap.

Quote:

LOL. Genocide? Do you think? NO. We don't need to kill each other as balance is a law in nature. As these unnamed species create imbalance, you can bet you're sweet bippie nature is going to bring it back into balance. It's not man that will bring man to his knees, nature will.

Every man is part of nature, so if I will, nature will have. The argument I was making was that "balance" would still be used as a "goal" and would therefore justify certain means. I made it pretty extreme to point that out. I hope you see my point.

Quote:

Sure, but what does that have to do with anything that I've said?

It proves that "love" would again be a "rulebase" and become a "goal". By creating "goals" one creates "good" and "bad" (as was the intent of the "rulebase") and therefore a seperation on the basis of what action is to be taken. Seeing as we cannot possibly judge what is "good" because we have no standing outside of "everything" (<--moral skepticism) that leaves for some strange situations. Especially if one consideres that the act is not right or wrong, but there is something about the act which is that. Just like an apple is not "good" or "bad"; there is something about that apple which is that. That something is called intent (in a broad meaning of the word). Seeings as all actions can have several intents and we can all agree that some actions are done with a nicer intent than others, we should ask ourselves which intents are "good". If we try to do this by saying that actions which have a "rulebase" as a "goal", we are acting "hypothetically"; we do not know if the "goal" really is "the good". That is the problem with "rulebases". Kant has come up with the categorical imperative so that we can base ourselves on what we, ourselves, like or do not like. That way we at least did not know we were doing something another did not like.

Anyway, a more clear explanation of the terms used can be found above.

Hope this helps.

@Justin,

Im gonna insist, justin, that you define balance. Also, how do you justify that your personal subjective understanding of how things work indicates some universal truth. when you speak of balance it echos the same dangerous religious dogmatism that has been prevelent for far too long. You must approach your ideas from the presumtion that they are wrong and attempt to prove them such before you accept them as true.
You confuse the correct state of things such that they serve the prupose we want them to with balance. Your engine is not balanced, it is assembled such that it performs a desired task, or is this balance to you? Perhapse a society that performs a desired action based upon a set of rules is also then good, so all who oppose this action must be disposed of. I personally believe that this view leads to an apathetic, let happen what will and the balance will take care of us when the earth is swallowed by the sun as it becomes a red giant. If we can preserve ourselfs and have a natural drive to, why not? Does this not also conform to nature? Maybe your idea of balance is true, I personally believe in determinism, everything is a physical reaction on the subatomic level and freewill is an illusion, but I also showed a way to disclude the pertinence of that possible truth in any sensible consideration of a problem. Just because somthing is a logical conclusion doesn't indicate its worth as far as applicability.

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235 wrote:

... This question is good and well, however, I wish to ask of you: How does one determine what is right(what is the good:))?

Wow you've bit off quite a chunk there!

This is a question that has more aspects/facets than anyone can count. Good for the body, Good for the Mind, Good for the Body Politic, Good for the Soul, Good for Fulfillment, Good for Experience, etc., etc... and not a one of them may agree. "Good" is what is positive or desired (my own ad-hoc definition). We'd need to narrow the field lest we become mired in too-large an issue. Nonetheless....

If I am not being too presumptuous here, I believe your answer *is* in philosophy. You spoke of not reading this or that person; I suggest you do. Through working to understand some of the various concepts of good and bad that some of these thinkers have written down over time (thinkers whose perspective differs and in so being, can shed light one hadn't perhaps previously considered), you can come to understand the complexity of the issue and pick out those that strike your gut as coherent and agreeable, tossing out those that don't. Most of these buffoons were simple people who happened to be in the right place, at the right time to articulate well something that took hold and eventually withstood the test of time. This is why they remain quoted, extolled and debated so much. It's worth a shot.

I, personally, agree with most that's been said here. I suppose; however, that I should jump in as well since I've opened my big mouth Surprised

I believe that was is good is what facilitates our survival and prosperity as a physical species. I believe that what's good for the individual is that amount of liberty that stops just shy of imposing on others right to seek the same. I believe that what's always good for the body (physically) isn't always good for the mind (and vice versa) - that one needs to mitigate, moderate and find that balance that they believe 'good'. Where different 'goods' compete, there may not always be a clear *best*. This is terribly complex - I'd humbly suggest you not get bogged down into the black-and-white; almost no action that can be deemed good or bad is FULLY one or the other in every light and in all possible permutations.

Good question - I hope you find an answer that's worthy of the intent with which you asked.

@Khethil,

You seem to be jumbling things together, whom have I not read that you suggest I read and where has it been indicated that that I have not read them, also, if you consider plato and socrates to be philosophers, then yes, I took what is the good directly from The Republic.
My original intent in asking the question was to facilitate the discussion of and exposing of for criticism the moral or political frameworks of anyone who has constructed one, but this is an equally valid direction I suppose.
I apologize in advance if I seem hostile. I feel as though I may get a bit too excited about these things.

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235 wrote:

I wish to ask of you: How does one determine what is right(what is the good:))?

I may be missing something, but should we always equat what is right with what is good?

@Zetetic11235,

If you so insist. Wink

Zetetic11235 wrote:

Im gonna insist, justin, that you define balance. Also, how do you justify that your personal subjective understanding of how things work indicates some universal truth. when you speak of balance it echos the same dangerous religious dogmatism that has been prevelent for far too long. You must approach your ideas from the presumtion that they are wrong and attempt to prove them such before you accept them as true.

Balance would be equal interchange between opposing pairs. Balance can also mean stillness. Balance could be described in many ways but the best way I've found is in Nature. The atmosphere is balanced.

The echo is not the same as dangerous religious dogmatism. I feel it's just part of the law of nature. In religion it could be considered the law of God. However, religion speaks very little of balance on the pulpit. Needless to say, I don't mean it to sound that way but based on my observation of it balance is very important.

Zetetic11235 wrote:

You confuse the correct state of things such that they serve the purpose we want them to with balance. Your engine is not balanced, it is assembled such that it performs a desired task, or is this balance to you?

Actually, an engine is balanced. Pistons rise and fall in perfect balance in a well tuned engine. If a spark fails to fire it will cause the engine to shake thus bringing it out of balance. You can use the same concept in almost anything. Sure it performs a desired task but if it becomes unbalanced it will not perform that task for very long. In the case of an engine, it may perform the desired task a little longer but because of it's imbalance it will cause problems in other areas.

Zetetic11235 wrote:

Perhapse a society that performs a desired action based upon a set of rules is also then good, so all who oppose this action must be disposed of. I personally believe that this view leads to an apathetic, let happen what will and the balance will take care of us when the earth is swallowed by the sun as it becomes a red giant.

I'm not so sure. Is that set of rules in balance with both man and nature? Balance and nature will take care of us and has and will continue until we realize the importance of it. It's man who takes nature out of balance and it's nature that will bring nature back in balance. This isn't a defeatist view on it and certainly we should not just let happen what will happen. It all takes time and it takes planting seeds and reflecting into the world that which we want the world to reflect back to us.

Take for instance our actions. If we hurt someone else we are hurting ourselves based on the laws predominant in nature. This goes back into karma and so on.

Zetetic11235 wrote:

If we can preserve ourselfs and have a natural drive to, why not? Does this not also conform to nature?

To preserve ourselves we must preserve our neighbors. It's by destroying our fellow man that we are ultimately destroying ourselves. It just is. Maybe I don't explain it in scientific terms but I feel it's rather simplistic and can be seen all around. I've experimented and experienced with it myself and have thus learned from it and can now see it.

Zetetic11235 wrote:

Maybe your idea of balance is true, I personally believe in determinism, everything is a physical reaction on the subatomic level and freewill is an illusion, but I also showed a way to disclude the pertinence of that possible truth in any sensible consideration of a problem. Just because somthing is a logical conclusion doesn't indicate its worth as far as applicability.

Personally, I can't agree with this perspective. If freewill be an illusion, what brings you in here to discuss it? What's preventing you from jumping off the next bridge? See what I mean, it's a difficult proposition as you and I are free to bring balance into our lives or chaos, that's up to us individually based on our perceptions.

Now, what flavor of determinism are you? Me, I don't do any of the isms. They are all just words created by man to divide and conquer and that's exactly what they have done. If we could take all the isms wipe them out and focus on balanced transactions with nature and our fellow man working together rather than working to destroy each other, wouldn't that be considered good?

One thing I'd like to mention that may ring true is that we as human being can only control one thing... our perceptions. Outside of perception, we have no control over anything. Our perceptions can literally change our physiology. Now, if we can alter our perception then ultimately our world will be perceived differently. Different causes and different effects based on our actions controlled by our perception.

We've actually created this world today and we are creating our tomorrow. I don't for one moment believe it's set in stone or predictable based on the past because humans continually evolve and create. We create Gods and we create cell phones. It's when we say we don't have the power or resources to change the future then it's true because that becomes our perception. Universal truth is only what one perceives to be universal truth. Universal truth as I perceive is Balance and balance is good! Smile

This is only my opinion and my belief based on my own personal experience of it. I'm not a rocket scientist and don't study philosophy or philosophers... I experience it on the journey through this life. Thank you for the interesting thread.

@Justin,

Determinism. It is simply a word I use to quickly describe a vague outline of my fundamental outlook on life. It is through my writing that I clarify my "flavor" as it were:). The danger in isms lies not in their usage and existence, for they are simply tools forged for the ease of those who need them, and like any tools, they cannot be blamed for the havok that may arise from their misuse. It is human lazyness which misconstrues meaning where isms are concerned, an inertia which reinforces preconceptions. Comfort is man's self destruction. Progress which stems from comfort is of the same nature as progress which stems from greed. Complacency and ill intent are a most potent mixture. A concoction that, it seems, too many partake of. Policies which stem from self preservation lead to species preservation and lead to said balance, it is when ill intent is left to fester and complacency leads to blind desires that those of ill intent will fill for unforseen costs.

@Zetetic11235,

I'm going to have to post this quickly, so I hope it'll make sense.
As some of you have touched on, it seems that the principle of universality would apply when determining if something is good or right (what's good for the goose is good for the gander and treat others as you would like to be treated, etc.) Application of universality will at least narrow the scope of what is right and wrong/ good and bad. (relative good versus univeral good)

Some have mentioned using natural systems to judge good and bad. I understand this and agree to a certain extent, however, there are times when nature seems cruel. There are cases when predators kill apparently for the sake of killing. Is a cancer cell "natural?" When the whole big picture is taken into account, it could be all for good, but we can't always access that big picture. I'm just saying it may not be proper to name all that nature does as "good." It's probably always necessary, but perhaps not "good."

And again, one of my favorite principles is that of Yin and Yang. All things
will balance out regardless of a good, bad, right or wrong label.

@Justin,

My conclusion of determinism comes from my faith in science. If we can show that the structure of this universe is an effect of the big bang, and that the nature and movement of subatomic particles is even vaguely predictable, you come to the conclusion that since all things in this physical universe are comprised or subatomic particles that all things are predetermined on a microscopic level. Now, some argue against this from the stance of the heisenberg uncertainty, but this is a rule of measurement, not reality per se.

@Zetetic11235,

Well I percieve good and evil as not even existing, sorry if I do sound nihilist, but its how I trully feel. I belive what Thomas Hobbes said, good and evil are simply desires and aversions, on a universal standpoint everything is pretty much neutral, we place importance on our own lives. So there are no definite boarders on evil and good, it simply depends on the person's desires and aversions. Some people belive in killing certain people while other's don't, that is why ethics are so ranged around the world. Also because of religion but that is more obvious than desires and aversions.

@Pancho the Great,

It is not at all nihilist to disbelieve good and evil, for instance; I only believe in maximal benefit as a proper set of morals, and any other set, no matter how emotionally charged, is false. Maximum benefit for the species, figure out which action cohere with it and prevent the ones which don't and bingo, perfection, approximately. Good luck with even getting such a good approximation though.

@Zetetic11235,

Even if the benefit of the species is something that is a burden for you? You know, like paying taxes.

Philosophy Forum

How does anyone know whats right(Aka:what is the good)

Quick Links

My Account

able2know