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

[midas77]

Originally Posted by de Silentio

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

We act according to what we consider good. It is in this sense that in terms of human action what is right is always equated with what is good.

[Pancho the Great]

Originally Posted by 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.

So just live your life with the least of your aversions, nothing is right or wrong, good or bad, who cares about the whole of society as long as I'm happy. Cuz if you belive in the good of the whole then that means your Utilitarian butt has to follow all the rules that come with it. I enjoy my freedom, not the false sense of freedom like the United States provides, I'm talking real freedom, and in order to be so free you must break some of the rules. But all those rules are unethical to break? I beg to differ, all can be broken at the benifit of gaining the freedom once promised. Untill then the whole can deal with my lack of contribution. This is where I start to sound Nihilist,and Existentialist, Egoist, Skeptic McWierd.

[Zetetic11235]

What is this freedom you have? You are free to act within the constraints of the physical universe if you do not believe in determinism, however, there are two sides of freedom. There is the freedom to act, and there is the freedom from action, and you cannot have both. You can be free of worry, but then you are not free to act and vice versus, which side do you feel is to be of greater emphasis? All end up choosing some balance, for the urge to self preservation is not something which is easily overcome. You can choose to live any way you choose..within parameters. You cannot have absolute freedom, some would contest, even in your own mind, for your mind does have contrictions.

[Pancho the Great]

I know what you are saying is true that I am only as free as a human can be without breaking rules of the physical world, such as gravity, which I will never be free from but, that is not what I meant at all. I realize I will always be a slave to the physical world, but it is necessary for existence, I was simply talking about being as free as a human can be in this world of boundaries. I'm more concerned with other people trying to obliterate my freedom within the boundaries of the physical world. Like when they say I can't smoke marijuana, or tell me I can't be naked, or tell me I can't hitch hike... you know, all things possible in the physical world but that people have restrained themselves from doing because of some law, that's what makes me seek freedom. And though seeking some of my freedoms may be unethical to most, I know that in reality its not unethical at all, thanks to Hobbes desires and aversions.

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by Pancho the Great

Like when they say I can't ...

Who is "they"? Shouldn't that be a "we"? ... we're a society ... as a society, we need rules ... it is we as an historic collective that decides the rules ... as an individual you are perfectly free to count yourself among the "we" and enjoy the many benefits of society - part of which means you commit to the rules, both in terms of obeying them and helping to define/refine them ... as an individual you are also perfectly free to divorce yourself from the "we" and go live in a rain forest where there are no rules ... you are enslaved to no one - the choice is yours ... isn't that the very definition of freedom?

[Pancho the Great]

False sense of freedom maybe. I do agree with you in theory, but theory and practice are two very different things and the probability of a rain Forest being its own sovereign nation in the year 2008 is highly improbable and you will have to respond to the rules of whatever nation is running that part of the rain forest. Divorcing your self from society is not possible this day and age. You know the funny thing about being free is that you are either free or your not, there is no median, so the minute there is one law saying you can't do something, you are not free, having to face consequences from another person thrown into this world just like you is not freedom. But of course "if you sit by the peg all day you don't know your on a leash," (Leftover Crack) try to smoke crack in front of a cop see how free you are, you can't even kill yourself, if your not successful with suicide, you will be charged with attempted suicide and you will be closely monitored by a cop or nurse everyday for at least six months. You can't even try to kill yourself and miss if you choose. And who is they?, they is obviously you, in order to be we I must be in agreement with whatever is going on with the we, but I don't even agree on a fundamental or basic level. Remember if the foundation of a house is cracked and you continue to build, your walls will fracture in the future. We do not need so many rules a few fundamental rules should cover it, there is a law for everything. Patriot act gone too far, drug laws, suicide laws, all should be gone, however I do agree with killing laws, and driving laws and environmental protection laws, mostly cuz of one law I laid out for myself that is universal, "one should not directly affect another, only indirect affect is legal." With driving and killing you can directly affect another person. With that one law is the closest to freedom I can ever get, which bases off of the only reason I don't do it is cuz I wouldn't want it done to me, (desires and aversions) thank you bambi!

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by Pancho the Great

We do not need so many rules a few fundamental rules should cover it, there is a law for everything. Patriot act gone too far, drug laws, suicide laws, all should be gone, however I do agree with killing laws, and driving laws and environmental protection laws, mostly cuz of one law I laid out for myself that is universal, "one should not directly affect another, only indirect affect is legal."

... excellent point! ... can you think of ways we can work to fix the situation? ... it seems to me that we wouldn't be able to do it all in one fell swoop (the problem is too enormous, there's a ton of inertia to overcome, and many many many compromises to be made), but is there someplace to start chipping away at it?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by midas77

We act according to what we consider good. It is in this sense that in terms of human action what is right is always equated with what is good.

We always act according to our definition of good; but whether it is objectively, which is to say: Generally judged and accepted as good depends upon whether the action is good for few or for many. The best philosophy in the world might be: what goes around comes around, because that statment teaches that end and beginning are connected, that good is good for all, and the wrong we do is suffered extensively.

[Pancho the Great]

Paulhanke,
boy are you right about the size of the problem and you certainly are right about starting to chip away at the problem, and I will do what ever is in my power starting with voting, and playing shows, trying to educate the dumb by printed text around the college...and then getting the hell out of here. But still where is the freedom from humanity, isn't there enough lack of freedom just with nature alone? Like I'm not free from being human, or gravity, or having to rely on oxygen. And then still enter society where your freedoms are still suppressed further, replaced with a false sense of freedom so that it is not so evident. But still we left the question about good and evil to discuss freedom...so about the good and the bad?

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by Pancho the Great

But still where is the freedom from humanity, isn't there enough lack of freedom just with nature alone? Like I'm not free from being human, or gravity, or having to rely on oxygen.

... do I wish I could just spread my wings and fly? ... certainly (it sure is awesome when I do it in my dreams! ) ... but some things are what they are and no amount of wishing is going to change that ... the fact that I can't fly under my own power is part of the "physics" of human being - on the other hand, being human means that I do possess some absolutely marvelous gifts, which I choose to appreciate and cultivate rather than sit around and dwell on my avian-envy .

Originally Posted by Pancho the Great

And then still enter society where your freedoms are still suppressed further, replaced with a false sense of freedom so that it is not so evident.

... I think this is another glass-half-empty/glass-half-full situation - it's a matter of blind luck that you were born in America and not, say, Darfor ... Henry Steele Commager states things better than I ever could:

But in America, where the Revolution was not followed by a Thermidor (the horror of the French Revolution), and where the greatest of philosophes was triumphantly elected to the highest office, the Enlightenment not only survived but triumphed. Contemporaries saw this more clearly than we do now, for time has blurred our perception of that contrast between life in the Old World and in the New which was so sharp in the eyes of the generation that made the American Revolution - a contrast not only in material well-being but in moral. We tend increasingly to interpret the American Revolution and Enlightenment not in eighteenth- but in twentieth-century terms, to see it not against the background of eighteenth-century Europe but against the foreground of our own time, and to be more conscious of its limitations than of its spectacular achievements. We take for granted what neither Americans nor Europeans took for granted in the eighteenth century; not only have we lost that sense of astonishment and exultation that animated Jefferson's generation, we have almost lost our ability to understand it. It is not perhaps surprising that we should be skeptical of a society that preached liberty and practiced slavery, but it is surprising that we should be equally skeptical of a society that achieved a larger degree of political and social democracy, constitutional order, effective limits on the pretensions of government, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, civil liberties, popular education, and material well-being than any other on the globe.

... it would be wonderful if each generation of Americans could achieve something so astonishingly laudable ... unfortunately, as Commager implies, we're getting rather complacent about what we have, and as we understand it less and less we also become more and more likely to lose it.

Originally Posted by Pancho the Great

But still we left the question about good and evil to discuss freedom...so about the good and the bad?

... a first question is whether there is any such thing as objective good and evil - or is all good and evil purely subjective?