What is GOOD?

[festive1]

This topic make me think of enabling behavior. Someone can be doing something "good," like paying someone's car insurance, but overlooking the fact that the person can't pay their own car insurance because they're out buying drugs with their own money. In this case, the "good" being done is overshadowed by the self-harming behavior it allows and even condones.

[LastPoet]

Good, who cares? But best? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo9buo9Mtos

[genkaus]

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.

[Whateverist]

Great. Another thread on morality.

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.

Yes it was good in the sense of our decisions and actions that I wanted to consider.

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.

I remember being flummoxed to read that Kant would consider the action of someone who visited his sick aunt in hospital out of love or respect for that aunt in particular to have no moral worth, or at least of lesser moral worth than the person who goes recognizing that it is moral obligation. Someone who went in spite of hating that aunt would probably get extra points from Kant. Sympathy is for Kant is a separate motivation than morality, and a good act is done because it is the right thing to do. (Yuck.)

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.

I'd say that it isn't a moral code we need but a civil and criminal code. There is also a need for a starter set of morals to guide youth.

But my point is that any conception of the good which relegates a person to being a rule follower is badly conceived. In the end, one would hope that a person would cultivate ones sense of empathy to a degree that one would extend good manners to others out of a recognition of their inward depth and potential. To my way of thinking the highest good would transcend the category by internalizing it unselfconsciously. Ultimately rule following must fall away or else our attempts at moral education will have been side tracked.

[fr0d0]

Ugh I hate duty. I think it worthless. Good doesn't value it at all. To good it's empty gesture. Like flowers to your wife religiously every Friday might be. Loveless. Without a driving force it's an empty gesture.

[cratehorus]

[The Grand Nudger]

telling the truth - about friendly troop movements to enemy combatants.
charity - sponsoring my favorite terrorist organization.

Just two that jumped out at me...lol.

[Whateverist]

telling the truth - about friendly troop movements to enemy combatants.
charity - sponsoring my favorite terrorist organization.

Just two that jumped out at me...lol.

You might be a saint you do-gooder.

[Gilgamesh]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgk4Cd7h6ak

[Whateverist]

Ugh I hate duty. I think it worthless. Good doesn't value it at all. To good it's empty gesture. Like flowers to your wife religiously every Friday might be. Loveless. Without a driving force it's an empty gesture.

I can't help notice you have personified the good. Why does that seem like a good thing to do? Doesn't that suggest that the good is separate from us? This is beginning to sound very platonic.