Is "not being bad" enough to be "good"?

[Will Torbald]

What makes something good, well, good? How does an action acquire the characteristic of being good? The establishment is "because it is not immoral according to universality" however I'm not too sure about that. It would be like saying that everything that is not a fish is a bird. But there are frogs and snakes and ardvarks too out there, so what is it?

I'm going to propose the case that a neutral state is necessary to have a clear unambiguous distinction between what's good and bad. Making moral theories without a neutral state is akin to doing mathematics without the number zero. The proposal is to add a zero to the ethical equation, basically.

It looks like this:

-1 <<< N >>>  +1

Where "bad" is -1, the "good" is +1, and N represents the "Natural/Normal/Neutral/Not-bad State of Affairs when there is no breaking of universal ethics". N state for short. The N state is what could be called peace, or justice, or happiness, etc.

It is said rather easily that if you are not bad, you must automatically be good. Using the analogy of numbers, it's like saying that if you are not a negative number, you must be a positive number. Or if you are not an electron, you must be a proton. Or if you are not black, you must be white. But that's not how it works in the world. You can be a neutron, you can be a zero, you can be a color of the spectrum.

So what's good, then?

The good is not the "not bad". Instead, the good is the "anti bad".

(-1) + (+1) = 0 or N

For good to be good, it must cancel the bad. For bad to be bad, it must cancel the N.

(-1) + N = (-1)

For something to be N, it can't alter the value of the good or the bad.

For example, playing the saxophone isn't going to stop anyone from committing murder or theft or anything like that. It's just an N thing to do. Is the saxophone player bad for not going out at night dressed as a bat to stop crime? No. Is he good, then? Not good either. Is being N wrong, then? I don't think so. It simply is inconsequential to affect the bad, nor advance the good.

Why the N state clears ambiguations: If there's a crime, and there are two people nearby - one rushing to stop it, and the saxophone player notices it and flees from the scene - both would be good without the N state. Fleeing from crime, and rushing to stop crime would both be "not bad" and have the same value without the N state. Since fleeing and rushing are actions of opposite direction, this can't be true.

Having a positive action for the good also signals a path for what ought to be done, rather than just having a set of rules for what not.

The good then is the set of proactive and reactive measures to stop the bad from attacking the N state. To defend it, to restore it after it has been unbalanced, and to prevent further intrusions of the bad.

Anyway, these are just the thoughts I've had recently. What do you think?
 

[bugzysegal]

What makes something good, well, good? How does an action acquire the characteristic of being good? The establishment is "because it is not immoral according to universality" however I'm not too sure about that. It would be like saying that everything that is not a fish is a bird. But there are frogs and snakes and ardvarks too out there, so what is it?

 

I'm going to propose the case that a neutral state is necessary to have a clear unambiguous distinction between what's good and bad. Making moral theories without a neutral state is akin to doing mathematics without the number zero. The proposal is to add a zero to the ethical equation, basically.

 

It looks like this:

 

-1 <<< N >>>  +1

 

Where "bad" is -1, the "good" is +1, and N represents the "Natural/Normal/Neutral/Not-bad State of Affairs when there is no breaking of universal ethics". N state for short. The N state is what could be called peace, or justice, or happiness, etc.

 

It is said rather easily that if you are not bad, you must automatically be good. Using the analogy of numbers, it's like saying that if you are not a negative number, you must be a positive number. Or if you are not an electron, you must be a proton. Or if you are not black, you must be white. But that's not how it works in the world. You can be a neutron, you can be a zero, you can be a color of the spectrum.

 

So what's good, then?

 

The good is not the "not bad". Instead, the good is the "anti bad".

 

(-1) + (+1) = 0 or N

 

For good to be good, it must cancel the bad. For bad to be bad, it must cancel the N.

 

(-1) + N = (-1)

 

For something to be N, it can't alter the value of the good or the bad.

 

For example, playing the saxophone isn't going to stop anyone from committing murder or theft or anything like that. It's just an N thing to do. Is the saxophone player bad for not going out at night dressed as a bat to stop crime? No. Is he good, then? Not good either. Is being N wrong, then? I don't think so. It simply is inconsequential to affect the bad, nor advance the good.

 

Why the N state clears ambiguations: If there's a crime, and there are two people nearby - one rushing to stop it, and the saxophone player notices it and flees from the scene - both would be good without the N state. Fleeing from crime, and rushing to stop crime would both be "not bad" and have the same value without the N state. Since fleeing and rushing are actions of opposite direction, this can't be true.

 

Having a positive action for the good also signals a path for what ought to be done, rather than just having a set of rules for what not.

 

The good then is the set of proactive and reactive measures to stop the bad from attacking the N state. To defend it, to restore it after it has been unbalanced, and to prevent further intrusions of the bad.

 

Anyway, these are just the thoughts I've had recently. What do you think?

 

Yes. This seems reasonable. The only thing I'd say is that when we look at the saxophone player, we can also say he's doing good right?  His actions when it come's to fighting crime are neutral, but the fact that he's acquiring some skill and using self discipline, makes him/her a better person and brings value into the world.  I suppose that's a re-framing of the moral stakes.  Also, note that when Stefan give's example of morally neutral propositions, he gives individual tastes or preferences as these examples. I think that's a safe move.

[Will Torbald]

Yes. This seems reasonable. The only thing I'd say is that when we look at the saxophone player, we can also say he's doing good right?  His actions when it come's to fighting crime are neutral, but the fact that he's acquiring some skill and using self discipline, makes him/her a better person and brings value into the world.  I suppose that's a re-framing of the moral stakes.  

 

He's doing "not bad" as far as I see it. If his music had the power to prevent the bad, or to stop it, that would be interesting. Music does have value with the N state as it is beautiful, fun, and inspiring. In a way, it can inspire others to do the good when it is virtuous, but by itself it is only an N action. For example, I would say that a food stand is also an N action simply because food is part of the natural/normal/neutral way of living. But selling food or eating food doesn't stop the bad in its tracks. In this sense the N does have value, it's just not anti-evil value.

[bugzysegal]

He's doing "not bad" as far as I see it. If his music had the power to prevent the bad, or to stop it, that would be interesting. Music does have value with the N state as it is beautiful, fun, and inspiring. In a way, it can inspire others to do the good when it is virtuous, but by itself it is only an N action. For example, I would say that a food stand is also an N action simply because food is part of the natural/normal/neutral way of living. But selling food or eating food doesn't stop the bad in its tracks. In this sense the N does have value, it's just not anti-evil value.

I edited my post and added on a bit about what I think are genuine morally neutral statements.  I actually didn't read your run away vs. intervene hypothetical.... I was referring to just the music playing.

[Will Torbald]

Yes. This seems reasonable. The only thing I'd say is that when we look at the saxophone player, we can also say he's doing good right?  His actions when it come's to fighting crime are neutral, but the fact that he's acquiring some skill and using self discipline, makes him/her a better person and brings value into the world.  I suppose that's a re-framing of the moral stakes.  Also, note that when Stefan give's example of morally neutral propositions, he gives individual tastes or preferences as these examples. I think that's a safe move.

 

Preferences are not actions, though. A preference for saxophone music is just a feeling. Playing saxophone is an action which however you want to see it doesn't have anti bad power, thus can't be good.

[bugzysegal]

"music saved my life" If there is no two way link between goodness and consequences whatsoever(not an argument for full utilitarian thinking, just that there is some interplay), consider how strange it would be im moral actions necessarily led to unfavorable consequences. Viewed in different lights I would say nearly any individual action can be shown to be good.  Killing, music, eating, feeding, sleeping, running, etc.

[Will Torbald]

"music saved my life" If there is no two way link between goodness and consequences whatsoever(not an argument for full utilitarian thinking, just that there is some interplay), consider how strange it would be im moral actions necessarily led to unfavorable consequences. Viewed in different lights I would say nearly any individual action can be shown to be good.  Killing, music, eating, feeding, sleeping, running, etc.

 

Music saved my life isn't specific enough to be judged. Here are particular examples capable of review:

 

Playing music allowed me to earn money to sustain myself: N state action, plain and simple survival.

 

Listening to music inspired me to seek help for self destructive behaviors: Self destruction isn't objectively immoral, so it hasn't stopped a bad action to happen either.

 

Living and dying are part of the Natural/Normal/Neutral state of things. Death in itself isn't a force of evil, just of nature. To delay death by means of music isn't deterring any bad action.

 

If you were to say, however, that "music saved my life by stopping my murder" you would have to be very precise in how it happened to be capable of validation.

[bugzysegal]

Music saved my life isn't specific enough to be judged. Here are particular examples capable of review:

 

Playing music allowed me to earn money to sustain myself: N state action, plain and simple survival.

 

Listening to music inspired me to seek help for self destructive behaviors: Self destruction isn't objectively immoral, so it hasn't stopped a bad action to happen either.

 

Living and dying are part of the Natural/Normal/Neutral state of things. Death in itself isn't a force of evil, just of nature. To delay death by means of music isn't deterring any bad action.

 

If you were to say, however, that "music saved my life by stopping my murder" you would have to be very precise in how it happened to be capable of validation.

"I was aggravated and going to assault Janice, but after hearing the eloquence of Shopan I had a moment of catharsis."  While highly unlikely, this is not impossible.  The idea that music soothes the savage soul is not new.  Even If it's effect is minor, this is not impossible. The way they would frame it legally would be, would some result (or lack there of) not have happened but for some cause.  

[Will Torbald]

"I was aggravated and going to assault Janice, but after hearing the eloquence of Shopan I had a moment of catharsis."  While highly unlikely, this is not impossible.  The idea that music soothes the savage soul is not new.  Even If it's effect is minor, this is not impossible. The way they would frame it legally would be, would some result (or lack there of) not have happened but for some cause.  

 

I was thinking about music in the time between posts, and I think you make a valid case here. There are three realms of action: thought, word, and physical - and music enters the word/sensory category. A song can inspire acts of agression as much as appease them given the right use of virtue or vice. It does not enter natural actions like eating or having sex or whatever since it's very artificial and deliberate. Like your comment about how every action could be used for good or bad, I agree on you with this one. Killing is just act of causing death, but murder is against someone's rights, while lethal self degense is good because it protects them.

[bugzysegal]

I was thinking about music in the time between posts, and I think you make a valid case here. There are three realms of action: thought, word, and physical - and music enters the word/sensory category. A song can inspire acts of agression as much as appease them given the right use of virtue or vice. It does not enter natural actions like eating or having sex or whatever since it's very artificial and deliberate. Like your comment about how every action could be used for good or bad, I agree on you with this one. Killing is just act of causing death, but murder is against someone's rights, while lethal self degense is good because it protects them.

So what's the consequence for your mathematical schema? Is neutrality as elusive and necessary as "0"?

[Will Torbald]

So what's the consequence for your mathematical schema? Is neutrality as elusive and necessary as "0"?

 

The first consequence is accuracy. If we can't define ourselves accurately, we won't be able to apply the best course of action for any given circumstance. Using the binary scheme works broadly, but breaks down on the very minute.

 

It also solves the "necessary evil" concept by making self defense not a wrong thing to do that we pardon, but actually it is one of the few good things you can do. The protection of the innocent, the self protection, the revolts against injustice. These are not evil things we put up with. It's about the one right thing you can do with your time. In the realm of thought there are people who spread misinformation, bad sophistry, mysticism, and so on. Combating myths and untruths is also another good thing to do. In that way, proper philosophy, reason, and science become high virtues to aspire to rather than condemn - as it often happens in the mainstream.

[bugzysegal]

The first consequence is accuracy. If we can't define ourselves accurately, we won't be able to apply the best course of action for any given circumstance. Using the binary scheme works broadly, but breaks down on the very minute.

 

It also solves the "necessary evil" concept by making self defense not a wrong thing to do that we pardon, but actually it is one of the few good things you can do. The protection of the innocent, the self protection, the revolts against injustice. These are not evil things we put up with. It's about the one right thing you can do with your time. In the realm of thought there are people who spread misinformation, bad sophistry, mysticism, and so on. Combating myths and untruths is also another good thing to do. In that way, proper philosophy, reason, and science become high virtues to aspire to rather than condemn - as it often happens in the mainstream.

 Gotcha. I suppose my challenge went only as far as your comment on neutrality.