Forums → WEPR → What makes something "good" or "bad"?
| 63 | 35965 |
Perhaps another topic should be started on that exact point?
-Quote from Mage that gots me to do this.
So, in the thread "Why do we do what we do?", the topic began to revolve a bit around the idea of why something is necessarily "good" or "bad". Even better with this idea..is it can be asked to both theists and atheists alike!
So..to theists..most of the time the answer tends to revolve around the idea that something is good or not-good because of the deity's decision. It decides what is seen as good or bad..but my question is, why? Or..to go more in depth..is something seen as good (or pious) by the deity because it favors the idea, or does it favor the idea because it is good (or pious)?
To atheists (or apatheists..if we ever get one)..why is it we see something as good or bad? Of course..it could be because of a natural drive for what is best for our species..but what of certain beliefs of good or bad that would go against this idea? (this, of course, would begin the topic of certain groups that have a different inherent set of beliefs than others..example: cannibals.)
Feel free to delve into this topic in anyway you see fit.
[Side note: Read Euthyphro for further thoughts on the subject]
- 63 Replies
Good or Bad is an irrelevant concept based on the idea of unpredictable outcomes.
Just so we're all on the same page, this view is called consequentialism. Well, almost. A close enough definition: the consequences of an action determine whether it's good or bad.
Since no outcome can be completely predicted and since in some manner good AND bad shall come of it trying to act as though one can be without the other is foolish.
And this is one of the main reasons why consequentialism doesn't work. But there are lots and lots of other compelling ethical theories out there.
Morality, you can say, is more so based on intention rather than result (although the outcome is not disregarded at all).
This is a good example of deontology. Sort of the antithesis of consequentialism (although in pure deontology the consequences are disregarded (e.g. Kant)).
Oh, and another good point:
what he said is part of the reason why I refuse to categorise certain actions as purely good or bad. Maybe it would be better to talk of "helpful/detrimental to a certain situation/condition/..." (relative), instead of "good/bad" (absolute).
I totally agree with this, but for a slightly different reason. In philosophy, the term 'good' can just mean something that has value. So it could apply to things that don't have anything to do with morality.
But HahiHa has an excellent point that 'good' and 'bad' may miss the point. As long as we keep in mind what the topic is about, then this shouldn't be too much of a problem. For those interested, the proper terms used should be:
good = morally praiseworthy (MP)
bad = morally blameworthy (MB)
I think this is the distinction that the original poster had in mind, and the distinction that we have in mind when we think about the topic. This ignores certain classes of actions (i.e. morally permissible, morally obligatory, and morally supererogatory) but this matches the distinction that HahiHa made, and I think it's a good one to make.
Just because there was a "bad" minority that died doesn't mean it takes away from the "good" majority, so either way, it was still an act of evil. Also, I think that the most horrible part is that these people were not punished for their crimes, if they had any, they were punished for their religious beliefs, which in itself is not moral.
Actually, Germany as a whole is still paying countries affected by the holocaust, and most countries are still hunting down and persecuting any Nazi that had any affiliation with the holocaust. Granted, many of the men that orchestrated the holocaust escaped, but saying that the group wasn't punished is just not true.
Good and evil are opinions. Simple as that.
Most people have the opinion Hitler was an evil person, however it is still an opinion.
Good and evil are creations of mankind's endless need to categorize the universe.
Granted, many of the men that orchestrated the holocaust escaped, but saying that the group wasn't punished is just not true.
I wasn't referring to the Nazis that had escaped. I was referring to the Jews that had died in the Holocaust. The Jews, as a majority, had not committed any crime against Germany, but in fact, they were condemned for being, well, Jewish. Perhaps there might have been a few coincidentally Jewish people that were rebelling and sabotaging Germany or committing crimes that had died in the bunch with the others, but the one unifying factor for their death by gas was not because they all committed crimes; It was because they were Jewish.
Most people have the opinion Hitler was an evil person, however it is still an opinion.
Hitler didn't do anything wrong.
Hitler didn't do anything wrong.
Umm... I don't think the majority of people believe that and I doubt you do either. Hitler authorized the slaying of 6 million Jewish people (and other minorities). That is doing something in most of the human race's opinion.
Hitler authorized the slaying of 6 million Jewish people (and other minorities). That is doing something in most of the human race's opinion.
Yes, because everyone knows that Catholics/Gays/Old People/Disabled are not important, I need to remember that.
We cannot live, as God said, on faith aloneWorst Bible misquote, ever.
[quote=Luke 4:4]And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.[/quote]
The Jews, as a majority, had not committed any crime against Germany, but in fact, they were condemned for being, well, Jewish. Perhaps there might have been a few coincidentally Jewish people that were rebelling and sabotaging Germany or committing crimes that had died in the bunch with the others, but the one unifying factor for their death by gas was not because they all committed crimes; It was because they were Jewish.
The Jews were a scape goat, plain and simple.
Germany was especially hit hard by the depression due to the allies being general ***** to them in 1918, and people were depressed, but then Hitler came along and put a face on the source of their miserly. Before long they had voted him into office (not literally but close enough) and you know the rest.
~~~Darth Caedus
Worst Bible misquote, ever.
Luke 4:4 wrote:
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
That quote means you need both faith and works, which was his point. But it is in direct contradiction to Ephesians 2:8-9 which specifically states faith not works.
I don't think the majority of people believe that
Majority opinion =/= fact.
That quote means you need both faith and works, which was his point. But it is in direct contradiction to Ephesians 2:8-9 which specifically states faith not works.
But Faith leads to works, and one who doesn't have works can't be said to be fully faithful.
But this ain't a bible study.
~~~Darth Caedus
I think this thread is getting a little off topic.
Then thanks for contributing to the topic instead of spamming
/sarcasm
But Faith leads to works, and one who doesn't have works can't be said to be fully faithful.
I see your James and I raise you Romans 3:22-28; 4:5.
The Jews were a scape goat, plain and simple.
As were Communists and many others.
Before long they had voted him into office (not literally but close enough)
Well, not quite. He got 2nd for the presidency and was later appointed chancellor. After detaining some political opponents, he got the most public votes, but not the needed absolute majority in parliament. After restricting more political opponents, he and his cabinet gained full legislative power, then merged the positions of chancellor and presidency into the new position of Fuhrer.
On topic: Should we differentiate between good/bad and right/wrong? It seems like r/w deals with the actions taken, while g/b is based on the intention. Or is it the other way around? Or are they entirely interchangeable?
[quote]It seems like r/w deals with the actions taken, while g/b is based on the intention. Or is it the other way around?[/quote
A grandmother talking to her grandson:
"Are you gonna do right?"
"Are you gonna do wrong?"
"Is what you did right?"
"Is what you did wrong?"
Me talking to my dog:
"Does that feel good?"
"Bad dog!"
Seems like the biggest difference to me.
And for my next trick ladies and gentlemen, I will through poor BB management completely discredit my entire post! Thank you, thank you.
t seems like r/w deals with the actions taken, while g/b is based on the intention. Or is it the other way around?
A grandmother talking to her grandson:
"Are you gonna do right?"
"Are you gonna do wrong?"
"Is what you did right?"
"Is what you did wrong?"
Me talking to my dog:
"Does that feel good?"
"Bad Dog!"
Seems like the biggest difference to me.
Of course, a phonetic criticism on my part is the sickest of ironies at this point.
Without a deity or high power there can be no natural or universal moral code due to the diverse human cultures. Killing may be "wrong" in one culture yet allowed in another. At a secular level, it is purely the culture that determines right or wrong through a set of social contracts. If you are saying a Right and Wrong that is universal, there must be a high being that set it in place.
Just my two cents worth (I only skimmed what was written so far. I'll read the rest of it later. Fingers crossed that this hasn't been covered already)
Killing may be "wrong" in one culture yet allowed in another.
That sound a lot like what we have. Of course we do have a number of biological reasons to not do tings like kill others within our own group. The killing of our own species is often done when we don't view those people as "one of us" but of a different group.
At a secular level, it is purely the culture that determines right or wrong through a set of social contracts. If you are saying a Right and Wrong that is universal, there must be a high being that set it in place.
I highly question the existence of such a moral system, but some have argued that a subjective morality could be based on certain actions have the most beneficial outcome, thus being the more moral choice subjectively.
Christopher diCarlo: The future of ethics: Exorcising the ghost in the machine (Eschaton 2012)
You must be logged in to post a reply!