Great. Another thread on morality.
The best thing to do with questions like these, is to consult a dictionary and see what philosophical conclusions one may draw from the common usage of the word. Let's see:
Good
adjective, bet·ter, best.
1.morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man.
2.satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree: a good teacher; good health.
3.of high quality; excellent.
4.right; proper; fit: It is good that you are here. His credentials are good.
5.well-behaved: a good child.
noun
42.profit or advantage; worth; benefit: What good will that do? We shall work for the common good.
43.excellence or merit; kindness: to do good.
44.moral righteousness; virtue: to be a power for good.
45.(especially in the grading of U.S. beef) an official grade below that of “choice.”
46.goods.
a.possessions, especially movable effects or personal property.
b.articles of trade; wares; merchandise: canned goods.
c.Informal. what has been promised or is expected: to deliver the goods.
d.Informal. the genuine article.
e.Informal. evidence of guilt, as stolen articles: to catch someone with the goods.
f.cloth or textile material: top-quality linen goods.
g.Chiefly British . merchandise sent by land, rather than by water or air.
From what I can see, the most generic definition of the word would be as following.
If there are certain premises (principles or purposes), then certain other objects/entities/actions etc. that are in line with those premises are considered "good". And those that go against it are considered bad.
For example, the purpose of a teacher is to teacher, therefore, one able to do the job in a superior manner is considered a good teacher. The principle behind a theory is that it is supposed to explain the facts - therefore, one that does is a good theory. Even the merchandise definition implies this concept as the said merchandise ultimately are put to specific human purposes.
So, when a context is not specified, it can be seen that it is a usually a moral one. When you say that a person is good or an action is good, you are talking about how closely it complies with a moral code. Given this, there cannot be something like The Good or Good or Ultimate Good because even if there is an absolute moral code, the word simply signifies compliance with it.
Gleaning what little I can from the statement about Kant, I'd assume that his moral code is duty-based. That there are some actions one is obligated to do or not do (whatever the justifications he provided) in a certain way and when done according to those principles, they are considered good.
Similarly, quite a few people here seem to follow empathy based moral code. Thus they'd judge the actions that are in line with that to be good. However, as many here seem to realize, such a moral code would not be completely rational or logical. Therefore, there are bound be contradictions within it which may judge certain actions as good and bad at the same time. Further, given that empathy is a tool to promote societal health more than individual health (and, in some cases, at cost of it), it would also be unhealthy.
Getting back to "the good" - I'd say that there are certain actions and principles that are common to almost all the moral codes. Principles such as telling the truth, paying what is owed, charity, kindness etc. and actions associated with it are usually considered as in line with one's moral code no matter which religion/society/philosophy one may subscribe to. This is why, I think, the idea of "doing good" or "being good" became significant. Since all moral codes agreed on those things, it was not necessary to specify the context every time the judgment was made.
The best thing to do with questions like these, is to consult a dictionary and see what philosophical conclusions one may draw from the common usage of the word. Let's see:
Good
adjective, bet·ter, best.
1.morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man.
2.satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree: a good teacher; good health.
3.of high quality; excellent.
4.right; proper; fit: It is good that you are here. His credentials are good.
5.well-behaved: a good child.
noun
42.profit or advantage; worth; benefit: What good will that do? We shall work for the common good.
43.excellence or merit; kindness: to do good.
44.moral righteousness; virtue: to be a power for good.
45.(especially in the grading of U.S. beef) an official grade below that of “choice.”
46.goods.
a.possessions, especially movable effects or personal property.
b.articles of trade; wares; merchandise: canned goods.
c.Informal. what has been promised or is expected: to deliver the goods.
d.Informal. the genuine article.
e.Informal. evidence of guilt, as stolen articles: to catch someone with the goods.
f.cloth or textile material: top-quality linen goods.
g.Chiefly British . merchandise sent by land, rather than by water or air.
From what I can see, the most generic definition of the word would be as following.
If there are certain premises (principles or purposes), then certain other objects/entities/actions etc. that are in line with those premises are considered "good". And those that go against it are considered bad.
For example, the purpose of a teacher is to teacher, therefore, one able to do the job in a superior manner is considered a good teacher. The principle behind a theory is that it is supposed to explain the facts - therefore, one that does is a good theory. Even the merchandise definition implies this concept as the said merchandise ultimately are put to specific human purposes.
So, when a context is not specified, it can be seen that it is a usually a moral one. When you say that a person is good or an action is good, you are talking about how closely it complies with a moral code. Given this, there cannot be something like The Good or Good or Ultimate Good because even if there is an absolute moral code, the word simply signifies compliance with it.
Gleaning what little I can from the statement about Kant, I'd assume that his moral code is duty-based. That there are some actions one is obligated to do or not do (whatever the justifications he provided) in a certain way and when done according to those principles, they are considered good.
Similarly, quite a few people here seem to follow empathy based moral code. Thus they'd judge the actions that are in line with that to be good. However, as many here seem to realize, such a moral code would not be completely rational or logical. Therefore, there are bound be contradictions within it which may judge certain actions as good and bad at the same time. Further, given that empathy is a tool to promote societal health more than individual health (and, in some cases, at cost of it), it would also be unhealthy.
Getting back to "the good" - I'd say that there are certain actions and principles that are common to almost all the moral codes. Principles such as telling the truth, paying what is owed, charity, kindness etc. and actions associated with it are usually considered as in line with one's moral code no matter which religion/society/philosophy one may subscribe to. This is why, I think, the idea of "doing good" or "being good" became significant. Since all moral codes agreed on those things, it was not necessary to specify the context every time the judgment was made.
