How can there be any such thing as "Good"

As I sit here writing out my paper on Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, I find myself with a different stance that I would have ever imagined myself taking. I find myself of the belief there is no such thing as GOOD or I guess evil for tht matter. How can there ever be anything more than the human condition. Good is only what we make of it. THere is no universal good (Plato) or any means of an end being good there is only how man perceives Good and Evil.

Nonsense.

Petting a puppy is an inherently good act in all circumstances.

Kicking one is inherently evil in all circumstances.
For all his brains, Aristotle didn’t have any pets, which is why he’s confused about these things.

Scylla:

But what if you picked up germs from the puppy’s soft, fluffy fur, then held a baby who contracted the terrible disease and died? Huh?

But what if you took a ride in a time machine and learned that later in its life, that same puppy would grow into a vicious beast who mutilated and killed your grandma? And that by giving it one kick during its puppyhood, you could subtly alter the animal’s developing personality so that it would grow into a gentle, nonbiting adult dog that would someday save the lives of a group of campers lost in the Appalachian Mountains by alerting the authorities with a series of barks and leading the search party to the rescue?

Yes, I’m going to go lay down now.

That’s why you’re supposed to wash your hands before handling a baby. Petting the puppy is still good. Not washing your hands isn’t.

Well, time travel isn’t possible at this time, and cause and effect are not so directly linked, so your question is moot.

Pretending that it made sense though, kicking the dog would still be evil, since there are other paths in the space-time continuum that lead to the desired result of saving the hikers.

Why not use your time machine to go back and save the hiker?

You just like to kick puppies, but won’t admit you’re evil. That’s it, isn’t it?

Why don’t you stop kicking puppies, and use your time machine to make megabucks in the stock market?

Well I would have to say that would be that can’t always be true.
First of all- You said petting a small puppy is always good
well what if you you was petting that puppy to gain his trust just so you could do him harm or steal him away from owners who love him. But that is only to refute your use of always and how you can’t say that.
But anyway my response to the entire puppy issue would be conditioning. Your basically saying puppies are always good to that person. Well NO that is simply conditioning. What of the “Watson and Rayner” experiments of human conditioning, they placed a child in front of a very small mouse and as the baby approached the mouse that would clang a hammer against a steel beam startling the child. Later with that mouse placed in front of the child without the terrible crashing sound the child was still udderly terrified; screaming, crying and crawling away. That is conditioning. So is that little mouse or dog for that matter always good for the human and considered wrong to not like and udderly hate the very prescense of an animal.

Well, I can give you the traditional answer, which is the one people like Plato and Aristotle used. YMMV, of course.

People have certain universal needs and desires, intrinsic in being human. These are called “ends”, and there is a debate what the ultimate end is…that natural need that defines what it means to be human. Some say it’s happiness, some say it’s virtue, some say it’s the accumulation of knowledge, or self understanding, or an avoidence of pain. People, when they act, can act to fufill those ends. If they act in a way that helps lead to the fufillment of the end, they’ve acted morally. If they act in a way that hinders that goal, they’ve acted immorally.

But wouldn’t those “ends” that one desires corresond directly with the society or even more basic the way he was raised. The poor man whats to be rich, the born in money cat strives for life normal and be viewed outside of statis. These are just a few generalizations that aren’t always true by any means. But maybe you see the point Im trying to get at. Basically Im just reiterating my original post. That its all in the human condition and that good is only what man makes it. There is no good just different perspectives, whats, desires, or needs.

I will be back in around 30 minutes

But wouldn’t those “ends” that one desires corresond directly with the society or even more basic the way he was raised. The poor man whats to be rich, the born in money cat strives for life normal and be viewed outside of statis. These are just a few generalizations that aren’t always true by any means. But maybe you see the point Im trying to get at. Basically Im just reiterating my original post. That its all in the human condition and that good is only what man makes it. There is no good just different perspectives, wants, desires, or needs.

I will be back in around 30 minutes

Not according to people like Plato and Aristotle. They believed that these “ends” are universal and intrinsic. It doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor, Greek or barbarian.

Yeah I see what your saying as far as Aristotle but I will have to disagree with your saying Aristotle AND Plato, Plato did not believe in the “ends” view, he believed good was derived FROM an ultimate good not in the act working towards a good, that’s Aristotle.
Quote:People have certain universal needs and desires, intrinsic in being human. These are called “ends”, and there is a debate what the ultimate end is…that natural need that defines what it means to be human. Some say it’s happiness, some say it’s virtue, some say it’s the accumulation of knowledge, or self understanding, or an avoidence of pain. People, when they act, can act to fufill those ends. If they act in a way that helps lead to the fufillment of the end, they’ve acted morally. If they act in a way that hinders that goal, they’ve acted immorally.

Yes, but according to Aristotle “Eudaimonia” or happiness is the ultimate goal or end. Therefore Eudaimonia IS the good. But happiness is a selfish emotion, Let me state that I am not saying that there is no room for happiness nor am I stating that selfishness is always bad. Man can not always think of the other man just as man can not always think of himself. So what is good if it does not lie within happiness or Eudaimonia. There is only actions that man partakes in to ahieve these goals he has set for himself. These goals are not always GOOD but they do help him achieve happiness. So if man has ill-intentions within his goals how can these “ends” be seen as the GOOD.

Excuse me if I used the quote featur wrong I tried to use Captain Amazing quote

I’m no philosopher, but I was a sociology student for a while…

The thing is, all human cultures have a concept of good and evil, and while the details my change, there are some consistancies…killing other people (definition of “people” meaning “those like you”) without reason is always bad, but treating others how you would be treated is always good…

Now, whether these cultures are signifigantly different than Western culture to say that these concepts are universal, I don’t know…

But my main reason for posting was to see if Belgarath recognized my signature…

AS some sort of reply to you Rogue1stClass, You are describing a society as a whole and I completely see your point but is that really what is good or that a means of survival by a society as is any law. Laws are not what is good and what is not. Its form of standards which allow a society to run smoothly and be successful as a society.
You described this killing “other people” meaning people not like yourself. That sounds more like a form of honor among thieves type of deal. Thieves steal just not from each other. Thats not really Good. But as far certain laws as against things like murder are probably DEEMED good because they work in the best interests of the society. But like your definition basically stated, BUT killing of others (Jews=Nazi) is DEEMED good as well. So just because it seems good and works for a society “I” wouldn’t say makes it necessarily good though it may be efficient.

As far as that Sig…Im not real sure, but I will go out on a limb and say it sounds alot like something my old friend SILK might say maybe? IF not fill me in I plead stupid

That’s why I try to avoid using “good” and “evil” if I can. I prefer Right or Wrong, and again Right or Wrong need ends to have relevance.

Erek

What I find genuinely amusing about this thread is that it’s supposed to be about the non-existence of universal good/evil, but, given an example of an act that was good (petting a puppy), everyone starts to strongly argue that it might actually be an evil act, or no, it might be good and evil, not that the labels ‘good’ and ‘evil’ don’t mean anything.

What seems to be troubling you is the idea that Good and Evil may be social constructs rather than inherent in the structure of the universe. What you should realize is that merely because something is a social construct doesn’t mean that it isn’t real. Here’s a short list of other things that only exist because humans have agreed to believe in them:

  • Marriage
  • Money
  • Baseball
  • Wednesday
  • Ballet
  • Property
  • Spain

In fact if you break it down, people spend more time worrying about the socially constructed part of reality rather than about the brute existence part.

So, yes, Good and Evil aren’t “real” the way a brick is “real”. But that lack of brute physical reality is no reason to reject their existence, anymore than you would reject the existence of Baseball or Money or Spain just because they exist only in the minds of men.

Well, when someone drops context into fairly ridiculous and abstract situations, then just about any objective concept can be deconstructed. I’m just glad to see that ** Scylla ** didn’t fall into the context-dropping trap.
Pochacco is right. There is no Absolute Truth that makes up the concepts of Good and Evil. However, we CAN have an Objective Truth as to these concepts (and the idea of using right and wrong vs. good and evil is a matter of semantics). Objective Truth very much depends on the CONTEXT of a situation (yes, I intentionally use that word quite a bit, because the context of a situation determines the proper course of action).

Here’s a question: Is the taking of the life of another human being wrong? Believers in Absolute Truth would probably say that it is. But what if you took the life of another being who was trying to take yours? In this context, most people would say that it’s quite justified to take that person’s life to protect your own. However, this instance certainly does not provide an excuse to go out and kill another human being on the assumption that he could possibly kill you in the future. We don’t have an Absolute Truth that killing is wrong under any circumstances, but then by keeping within a context, we also don’t say that since killing is acceptable within some circumstances then it is acceptable in ALL circumstances.

I don’t feel that the ends can justify the means, however. Do you?

It would seem so…

The ends can justify the means, it just depends on the ends and the means. It is wrong to steal. So, is it wrong to take a knife away from the rightful owner if he is intending to use it to murder someone?

There is no single act that is inherently good or evil: timing, circumstances and manner have to factor in, including whether the greater good is the desired result by committing a ‘sinful act’.

The Bible is a great source of this principle. In Abraham’s dealing with the nomads leering at Sarah, by lying about their relationship, it shows that lying in order to save an innocent’s life is more worthwhile than always telling the truth. Jesus was about to heal a man when the Pharisees who asked him whether it violates the Sabbath, the designated day of rest. Jesus rebuked them, saying “What man of you, if he has one sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” (Mt 12:11-12).

Note I said desired result. That the World trade Center attack made all nations reconsider support for worldwide terrorism, and that the people of the United States are more resolved than ever before to come together, does not mean that the attack itself was of any good.

It certainly is if one accepts that “it is wrong to steal.” If you accept that the ends can, but don’t necessarily have to, justify the means, what decision process do you use to detect when you use the ends as justification or when you don’t need to?

That doesn’t parse well to me, capacitor. If we accept as a premise that there is no absolute measure, from where does “the greater good” come from?

I suppose we can consider the greater good to be a statistical majority of people’s personal definitions of “good.” But then, in such a case, haven’t we imply stated an absolute standard of “goodness” anyway, in direct violation of “nothing is inherently good?”

(interesting you mention the Abraham/Sarah story-- that is one of my favorite passages from the bible (being a non-christian) as God punishes people for not being psychic and not knowing Abraham was lying)