How does anyone know whats right(Aka:what is the good)

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

... This question is good and well, however, I wish to ask of you: How does one determine what is right(what is the good)?

Wow you've bit off quite a chunk there!

This is a question that has more aspects/facets than anyone can count. Good for the body, Good for the Mind, Good for the Body Politic, Good for the Soul, Good for Fulfillment, Good for Experience, etc., etc... and not a one of them may agree. "Good" is what is positive or desired (my own ad-hoc definition). We'd need to narrow the field lest we become mired in too-large an issue. Nonetheless....

If I am not being too presumptuous here, I believe your answer *is* in philosophy. You spoke of not reading this or that person; I suggest you do. Through working to understand some of the various concepts of good and bad that some of these thinkers have written down over time (thinkers whose perspective differs and in so being, can shed light one hadn't perhaps previously considered), you can come to understand the complexity of the issue and pick out those that strike your gut as coherent and agreeable, tossing out those that don't. Most of these buffoons were simple people who happened to be in the right place, at the right time to articulate well something that took hold and eventually withstood the test of time. This is why they remain quoted, extolled and debated so much. It's worth a shot.

I, personally, agree with most that's been said here. I suppose; however, that I should jump in as well since I've opened my big mouth

I believe that was is good is what facilitates our survival and prosperity as a physical species. I believe that what's good for the individual is that amount of liberty that stops just shy of imposing on others right to seek the same. I believe that what's always good for the body (physically) isn't always good for the mind (and vice versa) - that one needs to mitigate, moderate and find that balance that they believe 'good'. Where different 'goods' compete, there may not always be a clear *best*. This is terribly complex - I'd humbly suggest you not get bogged down into the black-and-white; almost no action that can be deemed good or bad is FULLY one or the other in every light and in all possible permutations.

Good question - I hope you find an answer that's worthy of the intent with which you asked.

[Zetetic11235]

You seem to be jumbling things together, whom have I not read that you suggest I read and where has it been indicated that that I have not read them, also, if you consider plato and socrates to be philosophers, then yes, I took what is the good directly from The Republic.
My original intent in asking the question was to facilitate the discussion of and exposing of for criticism the moral or political frameworks of anyone who has constructed one, but this is an equally valid direction I suppose.
I apologize in advance if I seem hostile. I feel as though I may get a bit too excited about these things.

[de Silentio]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

I wish to ask of you: How does one determine what is right(what is the good)?

I may be missing something, but should we always equat what is right with what is good?

[Justin]

If you so insist.

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

Im gonna insist, justin, that you define balance. Also, how do you justify that your personal subjective understanding of how things work indicates some universal truth. when you speak of balance it echos the same dangerous religious dogmatism that has been prevelent for far too long. You must approach your ideas from the presumtion that they are wrong and attempt to prove them such before you accept them as true.

Balance would be equal interchange between opposing pairs. Balance can also mean stillness. Balance could be described in many ways but the best way I've found is in Nature. The atmosphere is balanced.

The echo is not the same as dangerous religious dogmatism. I feel it's just part of the law of nature. In religion it could be considered the law of God. However, religion speaks very little of balance on the pulpit. Needless to say, I don't mean it to sound that way but based on my observation of it balance is very important.

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

You confuse the correct state of things such that they serve the purpose we want them to with balance. Your engine is not balanced, it is assembled such that it performs a desired task, or is this balance to you?

Actually, an engine is balanced. Pistons rise and fall in perfect balance in a well tuned engine. If a spark fails to fire it will cause the engine to shake thus bringing it out of balance. You can use the same concept in almost anything. Sure it performs a desired task but if it becomes unbalanced it will not perform that task for very long. In the case of an engine, it may perform the desired task a little longer but because of it's imbalance it will cause problems in other areas.

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

Perhapse a society that performs a desired action based upon a set of rules is also then good, so all who oppose this action must be disposed of. I personally believe that this view leads to an apathetic, let happen what will and the balance will take care of us when the earth is swallowed by the sun as it becomes a red giant.

I'm not so sure. Is that set of rules in balance with both man and nature? Balance and nature will take care of us and has and will continue until we realize the importance of it. It's man who takes nature out of balance and it's nature that will bring nature back in balance. This isn't a defeatist view on it and certainly we should not just let happen what will happen. It all takes time and it takes planting seeds and reflecting into the world that which we want the world to reflect back to us.

Take for instance our actions. If we hurt someone else we are hurting ourselves based on the laws predominant in nature. This goes back into karma and so on.

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

If we can preserve ourselfs and have a natural drive to, why not? Does this not also conform to nature?

To preserve ourselves we must preserve our neighbors. It's by destroying our fellow man that we are ultimately destroying ourselves. It just is. Maybe I don't explain it in scientific terms but I feel it's rather simplistic and can be seen all around. I've experimented and experienced with it myself and have thus learned from it and can now see it.

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

Maybe your idea of balance is true, I personally believe in determinism, everything is a physical reaction on the subatomic level and freewill is an illusion, but I also showed a way to disclude the pertinence of that possible truth in any sensible consideration of a problem. Just because somthing is a logical conclusion doesn't indicate its worth as far as applicability.

Personally, I can't agree with this perspective. If freewill be an illusion, what brings you in here to discuss it? What's preventing you from jumping off the next bridge? See what I mean, it's a difficult proposition as you and I are free to bring balance into our lives or chaos, that's up to us individually based on our perceptions.

Now, what flavor of determinism are you? Me, I don't do any of the isms. They are all just words created by man to divide and conquer and that's exactly what they have done. If we could take all the isms wipe them out and focus on balanced transactions with nature and our fellow man working together rather than working to destroy each other, wouldn't that be considered good?

One thing I'd like to mention that may ring true is that we as human being can only control one thing... our perceptions. Outside of perception, we have no control over anything. Our perceptions can literally change our physiology. Now, if we can alter our perception then ultimately our world will be perceived differently. Different causes and different effects based on our actions controlled by our perception.

We've actually created this world today and we are creating our tomorrow. I don't for one moment believe it's set in stone or predictable based on the past because humans continually evolve and create. We create Gods and we create cell phones. It's when we say we don't have the power or resources to change the future then it's true because that becomes our perception. Universal truth is only what one perceives to be universal truth. Universal truth as I perceive is Balance and balance is good!

This is only my opinion and my belief based on my own personal experience of it. I'm not a rocket scientist and don't study philosophy or philosophers... I experience it on the journey through this life. Thank you for the interesting thread.

[Zetetic11235]

Determinism. It is simply a word I use to quickly describe a vague outline of my fundamental outlook on life. It is through my writing that I clarify my "flavor" as it were. The danger in isms lies not in their usage and existence, for they are simply tools forged for the ease of those who need them, and like any tools, they cannot be blamed for the havok that may arise from their misuse. It is human lazyness which misconstrues meaning where isms are concerned, an inertia which reinforces preconceptions. Comfort is man's self destruction. Progress which stems from comfort is of the same nature as progress which stems from greed. Complacency and ill intent are a most potent mixture. A concoction that, it seems, too many partake of. Policies which stem from self preservation lead to species preservation and lead to said balance, it is when ill intent is left to fester and complacency leads to blind desires that those of ill intent will fill for unforseen costs.

[chad3006]

I’m going to have to post this quickly, so I hope it’ll make sense.
As some of you have touched on, it seems that the principle of universality would apply when determining if something is good or right (what’s good for the goose is good for the gander and treat others as you would like to be treated, etc.) Application of universality will at least narrow the scope of what is right and wrong/ good and bad. (relative good versus univeral good)

Some have mentioned using natural systems to judge good and bad. I understand this and agree to a certain extent, however, there are times when nature seems cruel. There are cases when predators kill apparently for the sake of killing. Is a cancer cell “natural?” When the whole big picture is taken into account, it could be all for good, but we can’t always access that big picture. I’m just saying it may not be proper to name all that nature does as “good.” It’s probably always necessary, but perhaps not “good.”

And again, one of my favorite principles is that of Yin and Yang. All things
will balance out regardless of a good, bad, right or wrong label.

[Zetetic11235]

My conclusion of determinism comes from my faith in science. If we can show that the structure of this universe is an effect of the big bang, and that the nature and movement of subatomic particles is even vaguely predictable, you come to the conclusion that since all things in this physical universe are comprised or subatomic particles that all things are predetermined on a microscopic level. Now, some argue against this from the stance of the heisenberg uncertainty, but this is a rule of measurement, not reality per se.

[Pancho the Great]

Well I percieve good and evil as not even existing, sorry if I do sound nihilist, but its how I trully feel. I belive what Thomas Hobbes said, good and evil are simply desires and aversions, on a universal standpoint everything is pretty much neutral, we place importance on our own lives. So there are no definite boarders on evil and good, it simply depends on the person's desires and aversions. Some people belive in killing certain people while other's don't, that is why ethics are so ranged around the world. Also because of religion but that is more obvious than desires and aversions.

[Zetetic11235]

It is not at all nihilist to disbelieve good and evil, for instance; I only believe in maximal benefit as a proper set of morals, and any other set, no matter how emotionally charged, is false. Maximum benefit for the species, figure out which action cohere with it and prevent the ones which don't and bingo, perfection, approximately. Good luck with even getting such a good approximation though.

[Pancho the Great]

Even if the benefit of the species is something that is a burden for you? You know, like paying taxes.