What is GOOD?

[Neo-Scholastic]

You might find it helpful to distinguish between what is "good" and "virtue." In so doing you can talk about what those desired ends that are beneficial to civil society and contribute to the well being of the self and those we love. These things we can call goods, things like health, wealth, and happiness. And if one is so inclined you can extend this idea to a Platonic highest good or "The Good".

With respect to virtue, I prefer Aristotle's "Golden Mean" in which one seeks to maintain an ideal level of a certain character trait. The example he uses is courage. A lack of courage is cowardice, but and excess of courage is foolhardiness. This idea can be extended to other character traits like generosity. While a lack of generosity is stinginess, its excess can also be harmful both to self (if you make yourself and your family poor) or to others (if your support enables others to continue destructive habits).

[The Grand Nudger]

The trouble with that even, is that it still allows wiggle room and contradictory definitions. There are cultures who see no point where courage becomes foolhardiness. So between those two people (the one who sees foolhardiness and the one that does not), there would be a disagreement. Every one of those explanations leverages a value judgement of what is good or bad even in their explanation.

While a lack of generosity is stinginess, -making this lack bad - because stinginess is bad?

its excess can also be harmful both to self (if you make yourself and your family poor) or to others (if your support enables others to continue destructive habits).-making this excess bad, because making ones-self poor or supporting another or their destructive habits is bad?

I suppose that we just call the middle ground good, because it's good not too be those things that are bad because things are bad?

(iow, the explanations given can easily be summarized as "it's bad -because it's bad, and when it's good- it's because it's not bad.")

[Neo-Scholastic]

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 disagree. Duty performs an essential function. Civil and cultural rules can be (though not always) serve as a means for learning moral behavior before one has recognized the virtue that informs the duty. For example, we teach children to say 'please' and 'thank you' before they actually feel gratitude. This habit is not meaningless, because it reinforces the idea that gratitude and respect are important in civil society and also for our own moral development.

---

The trouble with that even, is that it still allows wiggle room and contradictory definitions.

For this reason, I believe Platonic ideals must work hand-in-hand with an Aristotelian approach. Each one is incomplete without the other. And because I am a believer, even these must conform to the inner sense of the Word.

[genkaus]

I'd say that it isn't a moral code we need but a civil and criminal code.

A civil and criminal code simply tells you what you should not do. It cannot dictate what you should do.

There is also a need for a starter set of morals to guide youth.

That's what kindergarten is for - "learn to share", "don't bite", "eat your veggies", "no dessert for you", "because I said so" and so on.

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.

While I agree with you about rule-following, I disagree that the sense of empathy should be the basis for developing one's moral sense. Like I said before, given the contradictions that would come from it when applied consciously, doing so subconsciously would be a sure-fire way of having a great amount of internal conflict.

[The Grand Nudger]

For this reason, I believe Platonic ideals must work hand-in-hand with an Aristotelian approach. Each one is incomplete without the other. And because I am a believer, even these must conform to the inner sense of the Word.

Yet still neither is complete -with- the other. The same assertions and value judgements must be made for the one and the other, and in invoking these as their foundation it is difficult to see how they can then -be- the foundation for those judgements, with or without your inner sense of whatever word you prefer (again a value judgement).

[genkaus]

You might find it helpful to distinguish between what is "good" and "virtue." In so doing you can talk about what those desired ends that are beneficial to civil society and contribute to the well being of the self and those we love. These things we can call goods, things like health, wealth, and happiness. And if one is so inclined you can extend this idea to a Platonic highest good or "The Good".

With respect to virtue, I prefer Aristotle's "Golden Mean" in which one seeks to maintain an ideal level of a certain character trait. The example he uses is courage. A lack of courage is cowardice, but and excess of courage is foolhardiness. This idea can be extended to other character traits like generosity. While a lack of generosity is stinginess, its excess can also be harmful both to self (if you make yourself and your family poor) or to others (if your support enables others to continue destructive habits).

A distinction is unnecessary if you notice the rational connection between the two. As you know, I reject the idea of highest/absolute/Platonic good or "The Good". The term implies a judgement and is therefore not applicable in any absolute sense. Even the "good" you mentioned - health, wealth and happiness - are considered good in so far as they continue to serve a particular purpose. The purpose of morality is to tell you how to live your life - therefore, a "good" moral theory (as in, not morally good moral theory, but one that is in accordance with the principles and purposes of morality), would tell you how to maximize the quality and quantity of your life. Therefore, to the extent that health, wealth and happiness contribute towards that, they' be considered good by that moral theory and when they start detracting from it, they'd be considered bad.

Virtue, then, refers to a character trait that helps you achieve that 'good'. The same way that nothing can be considered good in an absolute sense, there would be no absolute or universal virtues. Given the mutable nature of reality, there wouldn't be an ideal level of virtue - a golden mean - but which trait is considered virtuous or not would depend on the time and place, i.e. its applicability towards the 'good'.

[Whateverist]

I'd say that it isn't a moral code we need but a civil and criminal code.

A civil and criminal code simply tells you what you should not do. It cannot dictate what you should do.

Nor would I want it to. Isn't it enough to spell out what the agreed upon consequences are for transgressions of the group agreements. Why would we want to have our actions prescribed by some moral code?

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.

While I agree with you about rule-following, I disagree that the sense of empathy should be the basis for developing one's moral sense. Like I said before, given the contradictions that would come from it when applied consciously, doing so subconsciously would be a sure-fire way of having a great amount of internal conflict.

But I'm not suggesting that any innate sense as we find it will do. Rather, I'm suggesting that it is by cultivating and refining that sense that we become considerate and well mannered. A good person, in the moral sense, is one who takes into account the well-being and sensibilities of others as a natural expression of empathy which has been developed and extended overtime as ones own self-knowledge grows. Only to the degree I know and understand myself can I possibly extend courtesy to others. One becomes good not for its own sake but as a by product of maturation and acculturation by way of empathy.

Only unselfconscious empathy saves a person concerned with moral sensibility from turning into a prig. Any obsession with what is right and wrong outside of any context results in vanity otherwise.

[Minimalist]

What is GOOD?

Young pussy.

[Whateverist]

What is GOOD?

Young pussy.

Word up. (But I'm not complaining about the well seasoned variety either.)

[genkaus]

Nor would I want it to. Isn't it enough to spell out what the agreed upon consequences are for transgressions of the group agreements. Why would we want to have our actions prescribed by some moral code?

How else would you determine what actions you should take?

But I'm not suggesting that any innate sense as we find it will do. Rather, I'm suggesting that it is by cultivating and refining that sense that we become considerate and well mannered. A good person, in the moral sense, is one who takes into account the well-being and sensibilities of others as a natural expression of empathy which has been developed and extended overtime as ones own self-knowledge grows. Only to the degree I know and understand myself can I possibly extend courtesy to others. One becomes good not for its own sake but as a by product of maturation and acculturation by way of empathy.

Only unselfconscious empathy saves a person concerned with moral sensibility from turning into a prig. Any obsession with what is right and wrong outside of any context results in vanity otherwise.

This position is the result of presupposition - in this case, that of empathy. You start by assuming that empathy is the basis for morality, pretty much the same way theists start by assuming that what god wants is the basis for morality. From there, you reach the natural conclusion that the more intrinsically empathetic a person is, the greater his quality of goodness. Conscious application of empathy would require you to ask yourself why you should be empathetic even if it is not in your interest and the only way one would be consistently and consciously empathetic is if they receive some form of emotional gratification from doing the right thing. If that form of self-interest is present in the motivation, that dilutes the requirement for empathy as a moral basis and you are aware of that. Which is why, the highest form of "goodness" with respect to your empathy-based moral code, would be achieved by someone who has internalized that trait - someone who does good not because he has consciously thought it through and concluded that it is the right thing to do, but he does it because that has become a part of his nature.

As you may suspect, I reject this notion by rejecting empathy as the basis of morality. Not only that premise is not justified, I would not want the consequences either. I cannot live my life always considering the wants and needs of others and if I start going so unconsciously, I would simply become the ultimate doormat whose every action is automatically determined by what others would want from him. I recognize that empathy is a character trait within me, but what role it plays in my moral decisions and how much is up to me.