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

[Zetetic11235]

Earlier I spied a thread asking whether or not we know what is good for us. This question is good and well, however, I wish to ask of you: How does one determine what is right(what is the good)? Be creative and avoid excessive use of reductive logic leading to existential nihilism unless you can postulate a reasonable solution. If you choose a solution, continue it out as intricately as possible. Come up with a solution you might be willing to die for if you knew it would be implemented immediately upon your death.
Go wild on this one gents.

[as0l0]

I haven't thought about this yet, but I know I will have to eventually. I try to frame the question like this...

Is good good?

[Arjen]

Zetetic11235,

The problem is that we don't know what "the good" is. We have no means of checking. Our standing in reality is not valid to understand that because we are a part of it so we cannot judge in an impartial manner. Apart from that having a judgement of "the good" means to have a "rulebase" on how to act. By having that one loses sight of many things. Such a "rulebase" becomes like a "goal" to aim ones actions to.

By thinking of such "goal" one often loses sight of what one is doing. The crusades, for instance, are a result of the judgement that it would be "good" if "the holy land" would be in Christian hands. Such judgements are often called "hypothetical" in ethics.

This c reates for the difficulty that we do not know at all how to behave. I guess we just have to learn as we go along. To me what is important is not to act in a way I know I would not like myself if treated in such a way. Immanuel Kant has formulated just such a "categorical imperative". It comes down to acting only in such a way that we would like to be treated ourselves. That way at least we would not act in a way of which we know we would not like ourselves. It "filters" all which we know is not very nice. If at a later time we learn there are more things that we do not like ourselves we can change our behavior towards others in an instant. The "rulebase" of the categorical imperative is completely flexible and personal in that way.

Hope this helps.

[Justin]

What is good?... and how do we know it's good? Hmm... great question!

I like to take a simple approach. Good is the example that Nature gives us with Balance and Love. If we look at nature and look closely, balance is shown throughout. So if we work together with Nature, wouldn't that be good?

Right and wrong seem to be easy to figure out when we look to nature. Love is something you also see in nature so I'd have to assume that love is good. From experience I've learned that if you give Love freely, love is given back and that seems to be good.

Arjen, there is a way of checking whether it's good or bad we just ignore it. Nature shows us what is good but we don't work with nature. We would rather try to dominate nature and dominate our fellow man. This has proven not to work, therefore being bad.

I guess we just have to learn as we go along. To me what is important is not to act in a way I know I would not like myself if treated in such a way. Immanuel Kant has formulated just such a "categorical imperative". It comes down to acting only in such a way that we would like to be treated ourselves.

Correct. We are evolving to understand that we treat others how we would like to be treated.... But it goes further than that simple statement. Some of us like to be treated bad maybe because we don't know of any other way to treat people. We treat ourselves bad which is how others treat us.

All this moves us back to Balance. One of the most important words that man has. Forget everything else if we may and only concentrate on Balance and when and if we do, balance is all we need. Balance is Good! We know this because if any of our systems become out of balance, it's bad. Whether it be our checkbooks, diets or tires on our cars... everything in nature is balanced and that's where man falls short. Balance is good!

Love is good because because hate is not. Love actually creates balance. It's a funny thing but I see this everywhere, even with my own family and my dogs and cat. Love creates Balance! Balance is Good! Anything that is not in balance with nature, is not good. Seems easy enough to understand.

Those are my thoughts on it. Great thread, let's keep this one going.

[boagie]

Hi Y'all!!

Right or wrong, good or bad are linked back to the welfare of ones self, one's biology. On a societal level it is linked back to the health of the body politic, linked further back, it is the welfare of each individual member of the body politic. Right, wrong good and bad, are connotations of Good and bad health, it is what is good for me, literally, or good for the group, as the body politic---Nobody knows the trouble I've seen, Nobody knows my sorrow---!! only "A" body knows!!

[Arjen]

Hi Justin,

Originally Posted by Justin

Arjen, there is a way of checking whether it's good or bad we just ignore it. Nature shows us what is good but we don't work with nature. We would rather try to dominate nature and dominate our fellow man. This has proven not to work, therefore being bad.

What one sees in nature is dependent on what one thinks one sees. Although I, personally, believe that balance is a nice thing, it does not have much to do with learning this from nature. Most people think "survival of the fittest" exists in nature. That couter argues balance any day. Humanity is proving it as we speak (unfortunately).

Correct. We are evolving to understand that we treat others how we would like to be treated.... But it goes further than that simple statement. Some of us like to be treated bad maybe because we don't know of any other way to treat people. We treat ourselves bad which is how others treat us.

Do you realise that Kant uses the categorical imperative as a means to accomplish moral skepticism?

All this moves us back to Balance. One of the most important words that man has. Forget everything else if we may and only concentrate on Balance and when and if we do, balance is all we need. Balance is Good! We know this because if any of our systems become out of balance, it's bad. Whether it be our checkbooks, diets or tires on our cars... everything in nature is balanced and that's where man falls short. Balance is good!

So, if a certain unnamed species (guess which..) is creating a great unbalace, it would be "good" te re-establish the balance, right? -Genocide would now be "good"?

Love is good because because hate is not. Love actually creates balance. It's a funny thing but I see this everywhere, even with my own family and my dogs and cat. Love creates Balance! Balance is Good! Anything that is not in balance with nature, is not good. Seems easy enough to understand.

Have you ever heard of crimes passionel?

[Justin]

Originally Posted by Arjen

What one sees in nature is dependent on what one thinks one sees. Although I, personally, believe that balance is a nice thing, it does not have much to do with learning this from nature. Most people think "survival of the fittest" exists in nature. That couter argues balance any day. Humanity is proving it as we speak (unfortunately).

It's more than a nice thing so I'm going to disagree with you here. The earth is balanced. The stars are balanced. Our solar system is balanced. The engine in our car is balanced. Acid and alkaline balance. We try to get our skin balanced ph. Our diets balanced, our heart rate.. balanced. If balance is not a law predominant in nature, them I'm going need a real good explanation on how it cannot be seen when balance is what nature does. To my knowledge, there is no counter argument to balance just as there is no greater force than that of balance. As far as survival of the fittest?... do you really see that? I certainly don't. Nature is a system of balance. Just because a frog eats a fly, doesn't mean survival of the fittest.

Think for a moment of all the things in this world that require balance and then think of what happens when anything is out of balance. Balance = good. Unbalance = bad.

Originally Posted by Arjen

Do you realise that Kant uses the categorical imperative as a means to accomplish moral skepticism?

Not sure because I don't really study Kant or any other philosopher for that matter. I'm more of it is or it aint kind of guy with a simple approach to philosophy. I could study philosophers and science til I'm blue in the face but universal knowledge is something I can never obtain from another philosopher. It's more about the experience and living of it.

Originally Posted by Arjen

So, if a certain unnamed species (guess which..) is creating a great unbalace, it would be "good" te re-establish the balance, right? -Genocide would now be "good"?

LOL. Genocide? Do you think? NO. We don't need to kill each other as balance is a law in nature. As these unnamed species create imbalance, you can bet you're sweet bippie nature is going to bring it back into balance. It's not man that will bring man to his knees, nature will.

Originally Posted by Arjen

Have you ever heard of crimes passion?

Sure, but what does that have to do with anything that I've said?

[Zetetic11235]

I will take a crack at this.
There are many facets of truth, the more promoting a venue, the more viable it is considered to be. If a system of morals is backed not only by some silly aesthetic view and pushed foreward by only one kind of dogmatism but rather also backed by scientific truth and a second sort of silly dogmatism, it is considered more viable. One can construct a system of morals from natureal law and back it up with scientific truth. The golden rule can easily be tied into survival instinct thusly: One has the instinct to survive, one lives on through his or her children and work. If one commits an action which violates anothers children or work, one allows for said action to be commited to him. Thus kant's categorical imperative. For this to be true, two main conditions must be met, 1) All members of society must work and reproduce or be excluded from society, 2)The members of the society must realize how interconnected their survival is, they must see that through passing of genetic inforation they live on and by killing anyone they threaten their own survival. This system holds no universal truth but contains shades of two types of truth and relies on social conditioning. Good must be based on certain assumptions with no structural integrety. These truths are but pillars of sand erected in seas of uncertainity continually melting in the wake of realization and built up by forgeting dogmatism.

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by Justin

It's more than a nice thing so I'm going to disagree with you here. The earth is balanced. The stars are balanced. Our solar system is balanced. The engine in our car is balanced. Acid and alkaline balance. We try to get our skin balanced ph. Our diets balanced, our heart rate.. balanced. If balance is not a law predominant in nature, them I'm going need a real good explanation on how it cannot be seen when balance is what nature does. To my knowledge, there is no counter argument to balance just as there is no greater force than that of balance. As far as survival of the fittest?... do you really see that? I certainly don't. Nature is a system of balance. Just because a frog eats a fly, doesn't mean survival of the fittest.

Think for a moment of all the things in this world that require balance and then think of what happens when anything is out of balance. Balance = good. Unbalance = bad.

Actually I have been having a prolonged discussion with Pyth where I am arguing that survival of the fittest is a thought object and does not exist as an object in nature. Most of the mods seem to think that "science" has pinpointed it though and it is not open for discussion. But I know better.

The point I was making was not one of validity; it was that one can see in nature what one wants to see. To me a strong argument against (physical) balance is the fact that all matter is drifting away in different directions in quite a rapid manner. It also poses some other scientific quistions, but that may be important for another time.

Not sure because I don't really study Kant or any other philosopher for that matter. I'm more of it is or it aint kind of guy with a simple approach to philosophy. I could study philosophers and science til I'm blue in the face but universal knowledge is something I can never obtain from another philosopher. It's more about the experience and living of it.

I am very proud of you. I agree wholeheartedly. I did it the same way. I have also decided that I would have liked to have been pointed in the right direction. I think that some peopel want that too. So, I point things out to people and if they do not like to be pointed in a direction by me I stop. Actually it is the entire reason for my formal studies. I am busy writing some papers that will shake several areas to the foundations I think. Then again, people need to want to listen.

Anyway, Kant is a moral skepticist, which he argues from the difference between his categoria and his judgements. The cat. imp is a way of bridging the gap.

LOL. Genocide? Do you think? NO. We don't need to kill each other as balance is a law in nature. As these unnamed species create imbalance, you can bet you're sweet bippie nature is going to bring it back into balance. It's not man that will bring man to his knees, nature will.

Every man is part of nature, so if I will, nature will have. The argument I was making was that "balance" would still be used as a "goal" and would therefore justify certain means. I made it pretty extreme to point that out. I hope you see my point.

Sure, but what does that have to do with anything that I've said?

It proves that "love" would again be a "rulebase" and become a "goal". By creating "goals" one creates "good" and "bad" (as was the intent of the "rulebase") and therefore a seperation on the basis of what action is to be taken. Seeing as we cannot possibly judge what is "good" because we have no standing outside of "everything" (<--moral skepticism) that leaves for some strange situations. Especially if one consideres that the act is not right or wrong, but there is something about the act which is that. Just like an apple is not "good" or "bad"; there is something about that apple which is that. That something is called intent (in a broad meaning of the word). Seeings as all actions can have several intents and we can all agree that some actions are done with a nicer intent than others, we should ask ourselves which intents are "good". If we try to do this by saying that actions which have a "rulebase" as a "goal", we are acting "hypothetically"; we do not know if the "goal" really is "the good". That is the problem with "rulebases". Kant has come up with the categorical imperative so that we can base ourselves on what we, ourselves, like or do not like. That way we at least did not know we were doing something another did not like.

Anyway, a more clear explanation of the terms used can be found above.

Hope this helps.

[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.
You confuse the correct state of things such that they serve the prupose 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? 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. If we can preserve ourselfs and have a natural drive to, why not? Does this not also conform to nature? 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.