As I see it all good is derived from whether or not it hinders or helps mind. Something is good if we find it pleasurable, healthful, or otherwise helpful, and all of those things are that which expand and support the mind and the life that creates it.
A universe without creatures intelligent enough to appreciate it may as well not exist. Without someone to say “Hey, look at that” what is the point of anything?
As a favorite author of mine once wrote, “The sum of all religon is the commandment Thou shall not disfigure the soul.”
Why do sentient observers give meaning to the Universe? We’re all going to die anyway. We may as a species just about escape the Sun going nova, possibly, but we’re going to be screwed by the heat death of the Universe at the end. Nobody will ever know that we were there, or what we did.
The idea that there has to be a point to anything is a very human concept. I’m just along for the ride.
Aren’t you the one making the assumption that only humans can appreciate the universe and that therefore the OP was referring only to humans?
My cat seems to appreciate several parts of the universe: tuna fish, her brush, catnip and sunny windowsills. She finds all of these pleasurable, and will “point out” to me that I really should be brushing her now!
So a cat’s cognition level seems to fit the essential qualities of the OP.
Do I buy it? Eh. Not really, but mostly because I think “intrinsic good” is a human construct that does not equal appreciation, pointing out or pleasure.
because consciousness is what creates meaning through the minds ability and desire to categorize, seperate, and give meaning to that which, if left unobserved, would simply be with no meaning attached to it. somehow i think an old koan would be appropriate “if a tree falls in the woods…”.
i think that it may be the other way around, my words may be meaningless but the universe isn’t. but then again, i think that both have meaning. i am in a very literal sense a part of this universe, so it stands to reason that my awarness is just as much a part of the universe as anything else is (so how could it not be attached?), and it is my awareness that creates meaning and so you could say that the universe created its own meaning through consciousness (then again there are nihilists out there that would ruin this little theory of mine) and since nothing (presumably) exists outside the universe it would (could?) only matter what the collective universal consciousness thought and i do not think that the universe would deem itself meaningless. sometimes i find myself making up views just for the sake of debate… sometimes i’m not even aware of it, or sure that i believe in anything…
I don’t follow that at all. Or perhaps, it seems to be a tautology. If you can live longer at the expense of some brain power, are you hurting the mind (by hurting your brain power)? Or are you helping the mind (by making it live longer)?
I think you’re confusing two distinct things. You need to decide what you’re talking about.
Following jsafricanus, you need to define your terms. I’m not sure whether your argument is sensical.
Problematic. To a sadist, somebody else’s pain is pleasurable. Does that make sadistic pleasure good? (Not clear, actually).
Furthermore, while the mind is a necessary condition for lots of good things (such as pleasure) it is also necessary for many evils (such as suffering).
More generally, there are 3 categories that I am aware of for thinking about ethics. They entail the following:
Duty Theories (eg Kant’s categorical imperative)
Consequentialist Theories (eg Utilitarianism or my favorite Negative Utilitarianism)
Virtue Ethics.
