Objective Standard for Goodness!

[chimp3]

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?

Minimize suffering as much as you can; maximize a certain level of happiness and utility for all.

People who disagree with the above are sometimes sociopaths.

I mean "goodness" as in taste, food, yumminess, umami.

[The Grand Nudger]

That;s easy, whatever tastes good to you...objectively tastes good to you. We can watch you gorge yourself..we can see your brain light up. Conversely, we can watch you gag and vomit.

[chimp3]

That;s easy, whatever tastes good to you...objectively tastes good to you.  We can watch you gorge yourself..we can see your brain light up.  Conversely, we can watch you gag and vomit.

 
There has to be an objective limit to what humans find edible. 10 day old roadkill may objectively be outside that limit. But, maybe not!

[vulcanlogician]

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.

No love for aristotle?  Most of our current ethical theories on objective goods are aristotelian rather than platonist.  His ethics seek to arrive at the same conclusions as platos..but without the burden of those elaborate metaphysics.  I;d give him pride of place if I was associating people with objective goods.  Platos objective goods only existed in order to support his metaphysics..upon which they were predicated.

OTOH, Aristotle only broke that vicious circularity by refusing to address it in the first place.  Discussions of goodness and virtue only mean something to people who already possess knowledge of those things, to whatever degree.  I suppose that;s not intellectually satisfying, but it could very well be true.  It may be impossible to explain "what is good" to a person who has no prior concept of good.  Like so many "what's wrong with rape" threads.....if somebodies asking the question....and not in a half assed edgelord kind of way, you can be pretty damned certain that nothing you tell them will ever explain whats wrong with rape.  

That;s what springs to my mind, in any case, everytime one of these "how can we determine an objective standard for goodness" threads crops up.  Either you can or you can;t..but if you really cant....it;s probably a you problem, not a "we" problem.  

(we're shamelessly stealing your food pron thread chimp)

1) So first off, I don't really have enough knowledge of Ari to comfortably refer to him when speaking of objective goodness. Aristotle is a real gap in my knowledge concerning Greek philosophy. Why? I think you summed it up pretty well already. I have "No love for Aristotle." I hate reading the guy. I mean, I've picked up plenty of knowledge concerning him in my travels. I've imbibed some secondhand accounts of his virtue ethics, which I liked a lot. But I don't know him all that well.

2) Sure, one way to approach Plato is to see his philosophy as founded on his metaphysics. He certainly presents it that way. This is the "textbook" interpretation of Plato, and the way that most have understood Plato for centuries. But it's not the only way to read him. Many scholars, notably Julia Annas, emphasize Plato's Socratic approach--his adherence to the dialectic--something that is easy to ignore when one apprehends Plato's philosophy as a doctrine, which I don't. Forget about Plato's boilerplate metaphysics for a moment, and think of the forms as an epistemological framework. To use an example from the Republic, the physician studies the form of medicine. That is to say, that there is a "best way" to be a physician. Actual physicians have varying degrees of familiarity with this form. (ie some doctors suck, others know what they are doing). Likewise, there is a way of knowing this form of goodness. And a person is a good or evil person according to varying degrees of knowledge of the form of goodness. There is no reliance on wonky metaphysics here. I simply agree with Plato that there is a such thing as the truth. And while there are varying degrees of familiarity with the truth, you either know it or you don't. It isn't a subjective thing.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That;s easy, whatever tastes good to you...objectively tastes good to you.  We can watch you gorge yourself..we can see your brain light up.  Conversely, we can watch you gag and vomit.

Also, whatever tastes bad to me objectively  tastes bad to me.  And yet, when I mention how objectively bad I fine all permutations of that non-food known as 'pizza', some of the members here excoriate me.  For being objective.

Boru

[ignoramus]

I find my gag reflex to be the best teacher

I certainly won't be eating lamb brains again, that for sure!

[emjay]

It's an interesting subject, though I'm probably looking at it from a different angle than you guys... ie more psychological than philosophical. Specifically, I'm thinking about idealisation and devaluation; those processes don't (imo) create good or bad out of something that was neither before, but rather focus your attention on essentially objective properties of the object... so object O with properties a, b, c, x, y, z... could in one circumstance be idealised, bringing properties a, b, and c positively to mind while ignoring or minimising x, y, and z, but in another circumstance, could idealise x, y, and z, ignoring or minimising a, b, and c... or vice versa with devaluation (ie focusing on negative properties and ignoring or minimising the positives). And in this, the 'circumstances' that change are different needs and conditions at different times and it could be said then that at any given time, you only have a partial representation of an object accessible in your mind (to feel anything about... like/dislike, desire/aversion)... ie the properties you have idealised or devaluated based on your current needs. But the properties themselves are (or seem) objective; water is wet but it generally requires feeling hot and/or thirsty to idealise water bringing that wetness to the forefront of your mind as a positive feature... remove or satiate that need and that property is no longer idealised... and perhaps even devalued... and in my case, the 'bland' negative property of water usually resurfaces and I look for a more tasty drink

[AFTT47]

I think Desire Utilitarianism is a very good attempt at an objective standard.

The author, Alonzo Fyfe was a member on the old Internet Infidels Discussion Board before it melted down. I developed a lot of respect for this guy when I was there. That doesn't make him infallible; just thought I'd throw that out there. I personally admire this guy for his logical thinking and intelligence.

[LadyForCamus]

I find my gag reflex to be the best teacher

That’s what she said.

[ignoramus]

She was OK.
Her name was Debbie iirc