[Serious] What is goodness?

[Gnomey]

Ethics and morals are man made constructs, a byproduct of intelligent consciousness. Not place in nature for that.

I disagree! Look at apes, among other intelligent social animals. They may not argue ethics and morals in the same way we do, but they have a sense of what's right and wrong. I think it's an important part of any social species - do good by someone, and they do good by you. Be a "good" animal, be accepted by the pack/tribe/clan, live to see another day.

Since we, mankind, are nature, and it is in our nature to have ethics and morals, are they not natural occurences?

[ignoramus]

Yes, absolutely. Nature decides what is best for the survival of the fittest!
Human ethics and morals have always been relative (social constructs). (eg: I trust your parents don't keep slaves as described in the good book)

Nature is the truth teller. Intelligent consciousness (although natural) artificially meddles with the survival of the fittest paradigm. eg: atomic bombs, etc

Eg: do we look back to the industrial age in wonder? Or disgust? (the roadmap for killing our atmosphere has been laid)
Gnomey, I just don't know anything anymore.

[Gnomey]

I understand - it's easy to get discouraged what with humanity destroying our only planet and all. I do have some hope tho - it we can get out shit together we can fix it. Or, at least bugger off to space where we can find resources elsewhere.

I know, I know. I'm young and naiive and optimistic.

[brewer]

Ethics and morals are man made constructs, a byproduct of intelligent consciousness. Not place in nature for that.

I disagree! Look at apes, among other intelligent social animals. They may not argue ethics and morals in the same way we do, but they have a sense of what's right and wrong. I think it's an important part of any social species - do good by someone, and they do good by you. Be a "good" animal, be accepted by the pack/tribe/clan, live to see another day.

Since we, mankind, are nature, and it is in our nature to have ethics and morals, are they not natural occurences?

From the mankind perspective and your "do good by someone" statement, do you believe that apes only do good?

This becomes a slippery slope and often depends on perspective.

[ignoramus]

I understand - it's easy to get discouraged what with humanity destroying our only planet and all. I do have some hope tho - it we can get out shit together we can fix it. Or, at least bugger off to space where we can find resources elsewhere.

I know, I know. I'm young and naiive and optimistic.

"Or, at least bugger off to space where we can find resources elsewhere."

you mean like a bad renter who's trashed the place and pissing off somewhere else to live! lol
Is that really what we've become as a species? A glorified virus looking for a new host to leech off!

I'm not a left leaning tree hugger, but maybe the hippies were right all along

[AFTT47]

The closest thing I have come across to objective goodness is Desire Utilitarianism. It is about maximizing the desires of the greatest number of people. If you immediately reject this concept because the majority of desires may be evil, you are thinking way too simplistically.

Go ahead and Google it. I warn you though, it takes some mental gymnastics to appreciate this concept. It's not for the intellectual lazy.

[The Grand Nudger]

Desire utilitarianism isn't an objective system. It refers to a fact of a subject, rather than the object, as the good or bad making property. That's not to say that it isn't useful, or that it isn't a coherent system, or that it isn't true. Simply that any desire fulfillment proposal is fundamentally subjective. Any utilitarian system is great for extracting motivation and deontology, imo. I would suggest that you think it's close to an objective system because the utilitarian metrics are a sort of functionary provision. There are objective systems, though. Not close, exactly what they say on the tin.

Let's propose that Janet's most earnest desire is to be harmed.

A realist system claims that moral statements purport to report facts, and insomuch as they accurately do report those facts, they would be true. A tremendously popular form of realism claims that good and bad making properties can be roughly summed up to harm and help. Now, we don't know how Janet's desire plays out as a causal factor in her life. Maybe it motivates her to succeed so that she can better position herself to acquire the desired good. We'll leave Janet's state of mind to Janet and assume that, for her, to be harmed is a situation of no moral import, or of positive moral import - which will provide the desired effect.

Could we still be in the wrong for being the individual who supplies that harm? The satisfaction of our desires may not align with the good. In an objective system, things are right or wrong regardless of whether we desire them (or desire to avoid them).

A non-cognitivist might ask whether desire utiliatarianism invites the reduction of moral statements to emotive outbursts. Does a statement "X is good" reduce to a set of cognitive assertions about the properties of x, or does it reduce to an emotive outburst of satisfaction?

[Porcupine]

[...] the main one being minimizing harm and suffering. The positive spin of those values is increasing happiness and wellbeing overall.

Sounds like Epicureanism.

---

Let's propose that Janet's most earnest desire is to be harmed.  

[...]

Could we still be in the wrong for being the individual who supplies that harm?  The satisfaction of our desires may not align with the good.  In an objective system, things are right or wrong regardless of whether we desire them (or desire to avoid them).  

What do you think of the notion of philosophically understanding harm in such a way that something is only harmful to an individual if it is unwanted?

[The Grand Nudger]

That would be too restrictive to cover alot of our day to day experience, where we notice that the things we want are very capable of harming us, or of harming others.

Here, again, though, this is the difference between subjectivist and objectivist systems. An objectivist does not deny that a person might want something. An objectivist can, however, deny that the wanted thing is good, or free of harm. This isn't strictly possible for a subjectivist, as the ground of moral value is subjective to a subjectivist.

[Porcupine]

That would be too restrictive to cover alot of our day to day experience, where we notice that the things we want are very capable of harming us, or of harming others.

Not necessarily. In the first case it could just be that a past desire violated a future desire and in the second case it could just be that we don't desire the same thing as the other person.

Here, again, though, this is the difference between subjectivist and objectivist systems.  An objectivist does not deny that a person might want something.  An objectivist can, however, deny that the wanted thing is good, or free of harm.  This isn't strictly possible for a subjectivist, as the ground of moral value is subjective to a subjectivist.

One desire can be bad for another desire and this doesn't have to lead to all desires being equal and no desires being good or bad.

Why?

Because some desires are stronger than others. And, hence, some violations of desires are stronger than others.

---

eat
drink
sex
safety

After that it's a crap shoot based on a lot of variables.

My emphasis.

To quote what I said elsewhere when the user Brian37 said that "Life is a crap shoot.":

Very true indeed. Because it's (1) Fun, (2) Completely luck-based and (3) Usually an expensive waste of time at best and life destroying at worst.

*life-destroying.