Question, Sup Forums: What is good?

Question, Sup Forums: What is good?

I would assume that you all take interest in politics because you want to make the world a more "good" place than it is. But what does that even mean? What do you mean when you say "good"?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=rKhfFBbVtFg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Good is subjective. All attempts at creating an objective definition for good are doomed to fail

>inb4 god is good

Okay then, but you might, for example, walk out of a theatre and say "that movie was good." Or you might, in a restaurant say, "this food is good."

What do you mean in those instances?

good is following God's will

Aren't they just ways to express how much you enjoyed those experiences?

What is God's will?

If enjoying something is what you mean when you say, "a good movie", then would the definition of "good" be, "something that gives enjoyment"?

there's no way to make the world a "good" place, but a group of likeminded people can work together to achieve a desirable quantifiable metric.

the more of these achievements a group of like-minded people make, the "better" their lives are said to be.

you have in the Bible

Why would anyone think this? Because moral judgments are subjective? Every experience is subjective. The fact that your perception of a dog is subjective doesn't lead you to claim that no objective definition of dogs is possible. If you believe that the Earth has one moon, your belief is subjective, but you don't claim that there is no objective measure of the truth of your belief. The idea that morality is some special matter that is wholly subjective is the result of lazy thinking.

In that particular situation, it can be. Good as a word is very vague and context dependent. "Good" when talking about morality is basically a different word than "good" when talking about a movie. They are not referring to the same thing.

If pic related, the socratian idea that life in pursuit of truth, unafraid of death was good. For some analysis about this magnificent piece of art:
youtube.com/watch?v=rKhfFBbVtFg

Good means a world where people commit to altruism to their enjoyment

>The idea that morality is some special matter

I was not suggesting that though. You're right, pure objectivity has not been proven to exist. Unless and until it is proven, objectivity is just a matter of faith just like existence of God and therefore not suitable for a debate.

>I just read the Republic Sup Forums HEAR ME ROAR XD

>Engage my dialectic :D

>I'm just like my hero Socrates

God is unironically good though.

The word "good" carries with it several meanings, the most prominant being what constitutes a "good" life.

Give the Bible a shot and tell me it is bad.

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women.

Comparing the moon to morality is a false equivalency though. Good is not quantifiable because it points towards nothing that exists by itself in the real world. Earth having x amount of moons is not similar in this regard.

Good is a point of view anakin.

The obvious definition for "good" come from nature itself.

We evolved and during that process humans defined what "good" is, it is essentially "doing what is needed for the group to survive". That is fundamentally how our brain works and the reason we , as a species, succeeded history.

In extension this means "good" is what is needed for the survival for the "tribe/family/nation" and acting based on this definition of "good" is found at every point throughout history and at every step thought human life.

People may exclaim "war is awful" but that doesn't change the fact that millions upon millions of men willingly served and died as soldiers.
If it wasn't fundamentally good to fight for the survival of ones family/tribe/nation how would anyone be ready to take up arms against another person?

Why does love feel "good"? Because it is needed for the future of ones family/tribe/nation.

The examples go on and on and you should easily find ones yourself without much thought.


Moral relativists of course will claim otherwise, but this is what is destroying our societies. If people just can exclaim "there is nothing that is truly "good"" then anything might as well be good.
Without having some moral principles you might define anything as "good" which leads very quickly to abhorrent depths.

The Golden rule.

Kill others like you would like yourself to be killed?

To reach a level of science and technology where whatever life exists understands the purpose of life and is able to create and or sustain life in the universe. I don't care how we get there, we can all die for all I care if we can reach that end game.

"Good" is whatever I think it is.

>What do you mean when you say "good"?
White

what is good is what is natural. Nature at its core is beauty and thus good. Part of why the world is so bad now is because guilt stops people from pursuing natural desire to dominate. Since when has the lion not devoured the gazelle?

>Moral relativists of course will claim otherwise, but this is what is destroying our societies. If people just can exclaim "there is nothing that is truly "good"" then anything might as well be good.

Yet this is the reality. You choose to either live in delusion and maintain society or value truth over everything else and let everything collapse. Not saying that either option is better or worse than the other, but that it is a compromise of ideals either way.

Can man as a part of the nature commit a truly unnatural act, or even dream of such?

wus good felow dindus

nobody knows for certain. do what is right, follow your heart, learn from your forebears, and adjust course with intentions that don't cause you to anxiously doubt your virtues.

You are right - if you are the only one bearing the responsibility, and consequences of your action.

>unnatural act
No, not really - but one can commit an unnaturally stupid act, that is for sure.

the whole point of being human is to transcend nature, giving into impulse and base desire makes you a fucking animal, actually it makes you less than an animal, even dogs can be trained to not bite, to pee outside, to not snap your hand off when you give them meat etc. War and plague and rape and incest and famine are all parts of nature, should we embrace those things too?

There is an objective definition for good and I outlined it in my post.

Moral relativism is the easy way out. Instead of confronting the topic and are ready to accept that the answer will not be what they hoped for, moral relativists go the easy way and just argue that the question simply does not exists.

The Problem with that is, is that it leads to nothing. Even if there are no objective moral values, giving up the search is dooming humanity to a fast end.

>More "good"
It's "more better", dumbass

Also, goodness is true personal liberty tempered with honorable behavior. It can't be forced on a society, only inspired into being.

>What is good?
To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!

Liberty and justice for all.

that is "best" in life, not good.

Good, is making as many babies as you can while supporting your family, and protecting your racily homogeneous community from the mud monsters.

Good is what's good for the soceity as a whole. Bad is what harms soceity as a whole. I want to do good and stop bad

I don't think moral relativism necessarily has to be amoral.

I mean size is relative but there's a scale appropriate to measure trees and a scale appropriate for bacteria.

My definition of good is whats beneficial. Is what will progress and advance us. If it requires genocide of muslims and gays and mexicans, than thats good. I dont think of good and bad in a moral sense, but what is needed for humans to be better

>There is an objective definition for good and I outlined it in my post.
You did not. You only described why humans evolved to be capable of perceiving and understanding the concept of goodness. How an individual expresses and harnesses this ability varies. The complexity of goodness as a concept goes deeper than ensuring mere survival of yourself and your people, and the problem is only exaggerated the more technologically advanced we become.

>The Problem with that is, is that it leads to nothing. Even if there are no objective moral values, giving up the search is dooming humanity to a fast end.

I agree with you, but it doesn't make it any less of a "truth". Being alive and continuing humanity requires a certain sense of healthy delusion and unbased optimism.

If thought on a little different terms, it is possible, since things that one does, that lead to ones own destruction are unnatural, in a way.

...and the funny thing is, you get shamed and punished for not giving in.
But what do I know, I`m just a weird autist.

>“the standard of the good is that which is good for
society.” This meant, in logic—and, today, in worldwide practice—that
“society” stands above any principles of ethics, since it is the source,
standard and criterion of ethics, since “the good” is whatever it wills,
whatever it happens to assert as its own welfare and pleasure. This meant
that “society” may do anything it pleases, since “the good” is whatever it
chooses to do because it chooses to do it. And—since there is no such entity
as “society,” since society is only a number of individual men—this meant
that some men (the majority or any gang that claims to be its spokesman) are
ethically entitled to pursue any whims (or any atrocities) they desire to
pursue, while other men are ethically obliged to spend their lives in the
service of that gang’s desires.
This could hardly be called rational, yet most philosophers have now
decided to declare that reason has failed, that ethics is outside the power of
reason, that no rational ethics can ever be defined, and that in the field of
ethics—in the choice of his values, of his actions, of his pursuits, of his life’s
goals—man must be guided by something other than reason. By what?
Faith—instinct—intuition—revelation—feeling—taste—urge—wish—
whim...

Socratese's definition of justice was everyone working within their role of society, obeying the division of labor, and "not being a busy body"

We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children

>If thought on a little different terms, it is possible, since things that one does, that lead to ones own destruction are unnatural, in a way.

Since we have the ability to act self-destructive, does that not already make it natural? A person is compelled to commit suicide for a reason... usually as a response to the situation he finds no way out of. It could be said to be a natural response.

no, but certain acts or mental disorders can be incorrectly encouraged in the eye of society and thus set forward foolhardy or objectively disturbing events.

ie, encouraging gender dysphoria - no scientists or medical professionals would warrant this disorder as healthy, they would be medicated, especially considering the colossal increase in suicides after individuals are encouraged to transition
pedophiles preying on children - back in tribal times, these individuals would be executed at most and at least exiled out of society, rigid systems of silence in places like Hollywood and DC keep this criminals content and unpunished

technically everything is part of nature, but this is not to be said that all human behavior should be encouraged.

there are already scores of civilizations engaging in objectively and morally abhorrent behavior, like the Muslims and certain streams of welfare recipients. When before in history has a truly multicultural society flourished and lasted? Society requires a basic agreement on the socially acceptable values and habitual behaviors, without this chaos ensues only to be rectified later when the bear comes out of hibernation and reasserts his natural authority.

>You did not.
I did.
My definition was "good is what leads to the survival of your tribe/family/nation" and I think that is a complete definition what "good" means. (Until we humanity has evolved far beyond what it is today).

There is not one example (that I can think of), where something which is "good" can not explained by this definition.
What exactly does this definition not describe, where exactly does it fail?

I could make a statement that destroying Earth and all life with it is good. It would eradicate all the suffering we're currently aware of.

But very few humans actually believe that "good" means the end of suffering.

Anyone who truly believes that would kill himself to have the best life possible.


Arguing that the end of suffering is inherently good requires you to ignore most of humanities past and present.
Humans have many other reasons to live besides the striving for a reduction in suffering.

Our whole history tells of tales where people suffered for the sake of others, most often their family/nation/tribe.

>fpbp
/thread

It's not about what good is, it's about what good is not. "The good" is a lot like god, but God is not finite so he cannot be fully defined. You can only find what is good by defining what is not good. It is not good to hurt other people is an example. I know this argument has holes but it's the best one I can think of right now

Good is whatever is most beneficial to humankind. Good is what allows us to progress as it brings us up.

You're making a circular argument.

Morality has shifted significantly throughout human history. What we define as moral looks nothing like what our ancestors did.

I think the correct word OP was looking for is moral.

Morality and good is subjective. Being a moral absolutist is shit tier.

However this doesn't mean you have to be a degenerate, pedos can go die. Everyone else who cares what they do.

The second an animal becomes sentient, it is no longer an animal, but civilized.