RE: Objective Standard for Goodness!
June 9, 2018 at 12:16 am
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2018 at 2:15 am by vulcanlogician.)
(June 8, 2018 at 10:35 pm)chimp3 Wrote: How do you objectively decide what is good? That pan seared T-Bone with sauteed mushrooms? The old vine Zinfandel? The Fudge your granny made when you were a child? Sushi? Pizza? Hummus with pita and oil cured olives? Good coffee and pistachio ice cream? By which objective standard do you compare your favorite taste treats?
I would take issue with the word "decide." If it's an objective thing you would actually be discerning or figuring out what is good. You don't decide that earth revolves around the sun. It is an objective truth. You use observation and reason to figure it out. In much the same way, you must use logic and reason to discern objective goods. The figure most associated with the idea of objective goods is probably Plato.
Plato believed in an intelligible good that was discernible by logic and reason only. To Plato the human soul was divided into three parts: desirous, emotional, and logical. In modern times, we recognize these as functions of various parts of the brain (amygdala, prefrontal cortex etc.). The goods you listed would not be objective goods to Plato--rather subjective goods; things which appeal to our appetites, whose "goodness" is called such only because these things please our senses.
Let's take granny's fudge as an example. Think about how granny's fudge appeals to the senses; the rich chocolatey scent that surrounds them, the sweet, sugary taste that makes your mouth water. We call these things good only because they excite our appetitive natures. But this doesn't make them objectively good. In a purely reasonable sense, the fudge is objectively good perhaps only in moderation. Logically, a little bit of fudge might be objectively good because it brings pleasure to the senses, and thus happiness. Too much fudge would be objectively bad. Because overconsumption would lead to health problems. Health problems lead to unhappiness. Plato thought that happiness (or more precisely eudaimonia) was an objective standard by which we might measure goodness. Those things that produce eudaimonia consistently are objectively good. Those things that harm our lives or destroy eudaimonia are objectively bad.
The senses or the appetites might point the way toward objective goods, but they (by themselves) are inadequate tools for discerning good from not good. Let's say you walk into a room with a pan-full of granny's delicious fudge. But in this example, you happen to know that the fudge is laced with a deadly poison. If you were to smell the fudge, your senses would be exhilarated in much the same way as before. Your mouth would water at the chocolatey scent. Part of you, your desirous part, would be drawn to eat the fudge regardless of your knowledge of the deadly poison. It is only your logical self that knows that this is "bad fudge" and that it is unwise to eat it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_...ry_of_soul
