Good is all a matter of perspective and perception. Therefore, I don't think that true goodness exists. Everyone has a different idea of good because they all have independent thought and individual interpretations of actions and events and moral issues. People try to do good because of social pressures and moral obligations that they feel. People do do good things to serve others, but it all comes down to what the individual wants to do. People "bother" with it because it generally makes them feel good about themselves when they can help others or do something the general public deems "good." We've had this conversation before, people do things to fulfill their own wants. So if a person wants to do "good," they do things that they believe are "good" to complete their wants to accomplish a sense of completion.
In order to accurately answer this question(or, knowing you Chris, disarm the trap), we must kill a popular farce; moral relativity. SO, just as Classic Mechanics still holds cheif in speeds much slower than light, so too we do not lose development just because someone thinks something is good when it is bad.
We start by explaining relativity in the moral realm, and determining whether it is correct or not. Moral relativity is the concept that the observer plays a significant role in the morality of an action. If the observer is a Moslem, then rape is bad, but not on the man's part, but on the womans for adultery. Many cultures did and still do feel that a man may rape his assigned wife, as that is his wife and she has no right to resist. When a man steals a loaf of bread because he is starving, his offense is minor and he has reasonable reason to commit the offense. But from the baker's point of view, he paid for the grain and worked the bread into existence, and it is his, not the theif's to sell, give, or eat. So what is correct. In all these views there is misled logic. The Moslem doesn't recognize that a woman forced into sex didn't choose her position, and marrying her doesn't give a man possession of her. Those who disagree, stating that in their view which we must consider, women are property, are further following the fallacy. People are not property, and this is proven by how we behave and how we come into the state of "property." No man is naturally a slave. A man must be forced into this position. Women are apart of this(I will use man in place of people or humanity, as it sounds smoother,) but as men are stronger and tougher, many see it sensible to subdue them. Back to the point though, what I seek to prove with these examples is that All JUSTIFICATIONS FOR WRONGS AGAINST OTHERS ARE BROUGHT ON BY FALLACY.
Those of you who disagree with that statement will either let me know, or don't do the blag thing. I also alluded to my next point, what is Bad/Evil? WRONGS AGAINST OTHERS. To take from a rightful owner is a wrong act, be it life, liberty, or property. This is because any product of your labor and your life itself belong solely to you, and can only be done with by either your consent or force. And what we have established is that to use force is wrong.
So then what is Good? Good is BENEFITING OTHERS. To help fellow man, who by all reason can be expected to fend for himself, is good. Thus, childrearing, charity, employment, trade, are all good. But to say trade and charity are equal goods doesn't make sense, as in one you have an incentive to help, the other is good for the sake of good. Thus we will rank goods, as well as bads, by how and if they help others, if we benefit from it.
With this, we get a spectrum. The greatest good amongst two individuals is to teach and uphold another by all your own labor, or service. Thus, you make yourself a voluntary slave.(We are looking at this one way, as anyone who refuses mutually aid or benefit the other will be taken as an evil.) And the greatest bad is to torture body and mind someone else for amusement.
This does raise the question, how does one right a wrong? He stole from me, what should be done unto him. The answer I feel is equal harm. A dollar theft, a dollar retribution. A broken nose, 5 lashings. Rape, murder, torture, should be given death. But from societies stand point, why have known thieves about? I argue that if one cannot perform in society, isolate from society. Some argue this is an undue harm, if he's paid his due. However, interaction with others is a privilige not a right. The collective we do not have to deal with you and can kick you out.
Good is all a matter of perspective and perception. Therefore, I don't think that true goodness exists. Everyone has a different idea of good because they all have independent thought and individual interpretations of actions and events and moral issues. People try to do good because of social pressures and moral obligations that they feel. People do do good things to serve others, but it all comes down to what the individual wants to do. People "bother" with it because it generally makes them feel good about themselves when they can help others or do something the general public deems "good." We've had this conversation before, people do things to fulfill their own wants. So if a person wants to do "good," they do things that they believe are "good" to complete their wants to accomplish a sense of completion.
ReplyDeleteIn order to accurately answer this question(or, knowing you Chris, disarm the trap), we must kill a popular farce; moral relativity. SO, just as Classic Mechanics still holds cheif in speeds much slower than light, so too we do not lose development just because someone thinks something is good when it is bad.
ReplyDeleteWe start by explaining relativity in the moral realm, and determining whether it is correct or not. Moral relativity is the concept that the observer plays a significant role in the morality of an action. If the observer is a Moslem, then rape is bad, but not on the man's part, but on the womans for adultery. Many cultures did and still do feel that a man may rape his assigned wife, as that is his wife and she has no right to resist. When a man steals a loaf of bread because he is starving, his offense is minor and he has reasonable reason to commit the offense. But from the baker's point of view, he paid for the grain and worked the bread into existence, and it is his, not the theif's to sell, give, or eat. So what is correct. In all these views there is misled logic. The Moslem doesn't recognize that a woman forced into sex didn't choose her position, and marrying her doesn't give a man possession of her. Those who disagree, stating that in their view which we must consider, women are property, are further following the fallacy. People are not property, and this is proven by how we behave and how we come into the state of "property." No man is naturally a slave. A man must be forced into this position. Women are apart of this(I will use man in place of people or humanity, as it sounds smoother,) but as men are stronger and tougher, many see it sensible to subdue them. Back to the point though, what I seek to prove with these examples is that All JUSTIFICATIONS FOR WRONGS AGAINST OTHERS ARE BROUGHT ON BY FALLACY.
Those of you who disagree with that statement will either let me know, or don't do the blag thing. I also alluded to my next point, what is Bad/Evil? WRONGS AGAINST OTHERS. To take from a rightful owner is a wrong act, be it life, liberty, or property. This is because any product of your labor and your life itself belong solely to you, and can only be done with by either your consent or force. And what we have established is that to use force is wrong.
So then what is Good? Good is BENEFITING OTHERS. To help fellow man, who by all reason can be expected to fend for himself, is good. Thus, childrearing, charity, employment, trade, are all good. But to say trade and charity are equal goods doesn't make sense, as in one you have an incentive to help, the other is good for the sake of good. Thus we will rank goods, as well as bads, by how and if they help others, if we benefit from it.
With this, we get a spectrum. The greatest good amongst two individuals is to teach and uphold another by all your own labor, or service. Thus, you make yourself a voluntary slave.(We are looking at this one way, as anyone who refuses mutually aid or benefit the other will be taken as an evil.) And the greatest bad is to torture body and mind someone else for amusement.
This does raise the question, how does one right a wrong? He stole from me, what should be done unto him. The answer I feel is equal harm. A dollar theft, a dollar retribution. A broken nose, 5 lashings. Rape, murder, torture, should be given death. But from societies stand point, why have known thieves about? I argue that if one cannot perform in society, isolate from society. Some argue this is an undue harm, if he's paid his due. However, interaction with others is a privilige not a right. The collective we do not have to deal with you and can kick you out.