Mole Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 I'm sorry if I've glanced over it. There are so many podcasts. It can get messy and confusing. I'd like a concise definition and explanation. Thank you.
NotDarkYet Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 There are only two moral states. Immoral and not-immoral. UPB defines that boundary. If you're defining "goodness" as a set of positive actions then UPB has nothing to say about that because positive actions aren't universalizable. For example, we say "it's good to give massages" - then everybody would need to get in a big circle and massage each other. The first person who passed out due to exhaustion would lose their "good" status - - as would anybody who needed to sleep - - - or people without arms. Silly example, but illustrates the point. If we're talking about positive actions, then we're in the realm of aesthetics. Aesthetic goodness is defined by personal values, personal judgements, and goals. What is aesthetically good in the FDR community? For one: Speaking truth in face of overwhelming social disapproval.
Rventurelli Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 I'm sorry if I've glanced over it. There are so many podcasts. It can get messy and confusing. I'd like a concise definition and explanation. Thank you. I would say that good is what is virtuous. For me the most important virtues are honesty, courage and the devotion to the truth (which one could say is just following those two previously mentioned.)
M.2 Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 This question has fascinated me and occupied my thoughts since I was 13. But not even the World is in agreement over what is good and bad. It depends on what your philosophy is. What I have found out is the following: If you are... - Pragmatist: Whatever suits your own end is good, what doesnt, is bad. - Relativist: There is no good or bad. - Nihilist: Man is bad. - Buddhist: Nothingness is good. - Hindu: (Impossible to generalise) - Protestant: Whatever you interpret from the bible. - Muslim: Whatever you interpret from the Quaran. - Catholic: Whatever the Church says. - Jewish: Whatever serves the survival of God's People. - Stupid: I say what is good or bad. - Einstein: Bad is the lack of good. - Mr. Molyneux: Universally preferable behaviour is good. The trouble I find with the position of Mr.Molyneux, is that it is a circular argument. What does "preferable" mean? Preferability already implies something good or better. But who is to judge what that is? I suppose one has to find a value that is common to every culture. I haven't read his book, sorry. maybe someone who has can explain.
Donnadogsoth Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 Good cannot mean that which destroys mankind, by malice or neglect, for then Good would destroy itself by destroying the only Earthly beings capable of goodness. Therefore Good must mean that which contributes to the successful survival of mankind, in general and in particular, which means applying reason and agape to advance those ends.
RichardY Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 1. Prime Rib some of the time for me. 2. What stupid people or guardians say is goodness, and often badness for others. The trouble I find with the position of Mr.Molyneux, is that it is a circular argument. What does "preferable" mean? Preferability already implies something good or better. But who is to judge what that is? I suppose one has to find a value that is common to every culture. I haven't read his book, sorry. maybe someone who has can explain. Preferable; what you are doing at the moment, whether you consider it Good or Bad the distinction is irrelevant.
shirgall Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 - Mr. Molyneux: Universally preferable behaviour is good. UPB is a test of a moral rule, not a good in and of itself. If you want a Molyneux treatise on "goodness", it's On Truth, The Tyranny of Illusion: http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/OnTruth/On_Truth_The_Tyranny_of_Illusion_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf It's a book, but I'll give a hint: "truth is good". 1
Will Torbald Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 It's a book, but I'll give a hint: "truth is good". You might construct an argument that ends with "truth is good", but not with one that says "truth is goodness". Good is only an adjective. Goodness is a noun. And, I don't know, but it seems to me that the OP wants to know if there is such 'a thing' as goodness.
shirgall Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 You might construct an argument that ends with "truth is good", but not with one that says "truth is goodness". Good is only an adjective. Goodness is a noun. And, I don't know, but it seems to me that the OP wants to know if there is such 'a thing' as goodness. Agreed, and reading the book "On Truth" talks a great deal about discerning and spreading truth as goodness. Perhaps I boiled it down too much.
Mole Posted January 25, 2017 Author Posted January 25, 2017 UPB is a test of a moral rule, not a good in and of itself. If you want a Molyneux treatise on "goodness", it's On Truth, The Tyranny of Illusion: http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/OnTruth/On_Truth_The_Tyranny_of_Illusion_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf It's a book, but I'll give a hint: "truth is good". It's funny you bring the book up because I'm wondering about this AFTER I just read the book! I remember one chapter contained an exercise you can do with your parents: Firstly, ask them what is the capital of Madagascar is. They probably won't know. Secondly, google it and let them know. Thirdly, ask them what is goodness? I find it assuming, to say the least, and if not, downright cynical that Stefan says: "I absolutely guarantee you that there will be an instant chill in the room - there will be an enormous amount of tension, and your parents and probably you will feel a very strong desire to change the subject, or drop the question." I don't think the answer is so simple but we do have some general rules. Such as telling the truth is good. Showing respect is good. I think most parents would agree if we gave specific behaviours. If this question should be so easy to answer, surely the FDR community would know. So I'm asking. Aesthetic goodness is defined by personal values, personal judgements, and goals. What is aesthetically good in the FDR community? For one: Speaking truth in face of overwhelming social disapproval. So are you saying it is different for different people, but for the FDR community it's countering social metaphysics as an example? It seems contradictory to say goodness is defined by personal judgement when I thought personal judgement is defined by goodness.
RichardY Posted January 25, 2017 Posted January 25, 2017 Truth; a Good to most, a nightmare to others.
Siegfried von Walheim Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 It is hard to define what is truly good, except maybe truth. The reason being everyone has their own preferences which affects what is "good". I tend to refer to UPB as my secular bible on ethics. As someone stated above, good tends to be "aesthetic" rather than concrete. On the other hand evil is very easy to define as it involves aggressive acts that can never be universalized(because if they could, they wouldn't be "aggressive" as consent negates aggression). Rape, for example, cannot be good because for it to be good everyone must rape and want to be raped, the want negates the aggression part of rape, which negates the definition of rape, and merely becomes massive consensual sex. Which itself cannot be universalized because not everybody is capable of giving consent to sex. Consensual sex could be preferred by very many people, but can be at best an aesthetic "virtue" as not everybody likes or can have sex. However consensual sex is much more "virtuous" than rape, which requires for one party to be violated by the other. Does this make sense? It's funny you bring the book up because I'm wondering about this AFTER I just read the book! I remember one chapter contained an exercise you can do with your parents: Firstly, ask them what is the capital of Madagascar is. They probably won't know. Secondly, google it and let them know. Thirdly, ask them what is goodness? I find it assuming, to say the least, and if not, downright cynical that Stefan says: "I absolutely guarantee you that there will be an instant chill in the room - there will be an enormous amount of tension, and your parents and probably you will feel a very strong desire to change the subject, or drop the question." I don't think the answer is so simple but we do have some general rules. Such as telling the truth is good. Showing respect is good. I think most parents would agree if we gave specific behaviours. If this question should be so easy to answer, surely the FDR community would know. So I'm asking. So are you saying it is different for different people, but for the FDR community it's countering social metaphysics as an example? It seems contradictory to say goodness is defined by personal judgement when I thought personal judgement is defined by goodness. Truth is not necessarily good in itself, as telling the killer where your children are is enabling murder, which is evil. However telling the truth is usually good, and so is not killing. The demarcation where good acts become evil (and vice versa) is when aggression has been initiated; it is immoral to be honest to a killer, and moral to kill a killer. However, it is immoral to lie to someone who hasn't lied, or to kill someone who hasn't killed (or intended to kill).
Recommended Posts