ou asked "What makes the good life good?"
You then said in your post:
"a good life will be a highly-meaningful life."
So is not your answer that it is richness of meaning which makes a good life good? ...Sounds true enough to me. — Yohan

Yes. You understand an important part of the case I was making, Yohan. Thank you for the sincere compliment; and for your insight and wisdom.

One might say, of a human life, that a good life is one that makes its own judgement of itself wholeheartedly and insightfully. A poor life, by contrast, is always occupied with judgement of others. — unenlightened

Excellent observation! You got that right!!

As you may have noticed, my writings in Ethics stress the point that to be ethical is to be non-judgmental ethically-speaking A good moral standard, I would argue, is: "I will not morally judge others!"

I think I pointed this out before, eudaimonia (live well) is priority #1, everything else is secondary. It is on this issue that philosophy reveals its true nature/goal - sophia which no one to my knowledge knows what it is.

be non-judgmental — Marvin Katz

Quare?

I think I pointed this out before, eudaimonia (live well) is priority #1, everything else is secondary. — Agent Smith

Eudaimonia sounds impractical. Who actually has achieved it?

Eudaimonia sounds impractical. Who actually has achieved it? — Yohan

sophia which no one to my knowledge knows what it is. — Agent Smith

I know!

The primary question is: What is the good life? If we cannot answer that we cannot address the question of what makes it good. The problem is, the question of what makes it good assumes an answer to the more fundamental question of what that life is.

Rather than attempting to feed us pablum in the guise of "science", you would do well to acknowledge that the question is aporetic. It is clear, however, that you think the question has been adequately answered, and you are here to provide us with that answer, via Hartman. And as a bonus, free of charge, you include your "college course" on ethics. You do note the importance of questions, but only in order to provide your "scientific" answers.

The Good life = Jesus of Nazareth (only a man and yet ... a god).

The Good life = Jesus of Nazareth (only a man and yet ... a god). — Agent Smith

Not sure that sacrificing yourself to yourself to save us from yourself and from rules you made yourself - counts. Given Yahweh is jealous, vengeful and murderous, like any Mafia Don, then Jesus is part of the problem.

Not sure that sacrificing yourself to yourself to save us from yourself and from rules you made yourself - counts. Given Yahweh is jealous, vengeful and murderous, like any Mafia Don, then Jesus is part of the problem. — Tom Storm

Sadly, I'll have to agree with you. If the world were a novel, Jesus is a poorly developed chracter. I wrote it on the spur of the moment - it just felt right then, not so now. Muchas gracias, señor!

:up: I think many people would agree with you.

I think many people would agree with you. — Tom Storm

:up: By the way, what, in your assessment, would be a good life? It seems that because the Greeks thought of morality in terms of character (of a person), Jesus (a good person according to Christians) was the first to cross my mind.

I don't have a considered theory of The Good. But all versions are 'good' subject to a particular value system. I don't think it has to involve overt philosophy.

I knew a man who died this year aged 98. He believed in moderation in all things, living simply, planting trees, taking care of family and friends, keeping the noise down, not asking for special treatment and looking after the environment. He thought the idea of god/s were unnecessary and believed that religions generally led to conflict. He liked to garden and read books and preferred to stay out of arguments. Good health mattered more to him than money. He appreciated paying taxes and he trusted strangers. That's pretty close to a good life from where I sit.

A blessed life 98-year-old man! Requiescat in pace. :death: :flower:

He thought the idea of god/s were unnecessary and believed that religions generally led to conflict. He liked to garden and read books and preferred to stay out of arguments. — Tom Storm

What an intellectual man he was! :flower: :sparkle:

But all versions are 'good' subject to a particular value system. — Tom Storm

I have problems with the idea of value systems. No doubt we have things we value, but I do not think that they form systems.

It is commonly held, and some might regard it as a truism, that what we value is what is good. But the question arises whether we ought to value something because it is good rather than regard it as good because we value it?

I have problems with the idea of value systems. No doubt we have things we value, but I do not think that they form systems. — Fooloso4

I've been happy enough with the idea, although I would never say it is perfect and maybe the word 'system' needs refinement. Some people hold to several systems or values presuppositions or values structures at once, say, Catholic social justice teachings and neoliberalism and view most activities through those lenses and may be tested by the inherent contradictions. So the systems I am thinking of do not work smoothly like a machine. I guess 'value system' means worldview. I also don't think people value notions because they are good as such. I think they value them often without knowing why and sometimes without even knowing that they hold them. For many people values are like a bedrock of 'reality' to them.

But it's worth thinking about some more and any further thoughts welcome.

I suspect that what is generally meant by a value system is simply those things they value rather than values that are systematically derived, determined, ordered, integrated and applied. Further, it may be that we cannot always say in advance what it is we value until we are confronted with a situation where we must act or decide.

What we may regard as good is what in one sense or another we value, but I think this falls short of what ethical deliberation requires. My own view follows that of Plato and Aristotle - it does not focus on values but on the question of the good. We all desire what is good, but the good does not guide our deliberations. It is rather what those deliberations aim at. The question of the good is aporetic. Short of knowledge of the good the best we can do is what upon deliberation seems best, and the flexibility of thought to modify what seems to be as needed.

You are a traditionalist. I've not really concerned myself with notions of the good. I have considered simple minded notions of human flourishing as a goal for human behaviour. I generally do what I want but am tempered (or limited) by the Christian moral culture I have inherited. Notions of compassion, forgiveness, redemption, preferential treatment of the poor form part of my worldview. Jesus not so much.

Do you value truth and beauty along with the good?

I suspect that what is generally meant by a value system is simply those things they value rather than values that are systematically derived, determined, ordered, integrated and applied. — Fooloso4

Agree. Maybe I will use 'beliefs and values' from now on.

Further, it may be that we cannot always say in advance what it is we value until we are confronted with a situation where we must act or decide. — Fooloso4

No question. And what people say (or think) they value is often not what they value in practice.

You are a traditionalist. — Tom Storm

I do not consider myself a traditionalist. In part because I don't know what is included or excluded from the tradition. I am a Marxist ... Groucho, that is: "Whatever it is I'm against it".

I have considered simple minded notions of human flourishing as a goal for human behaviour. — Tom Storm

So, you're a traditionalist! The notion of human flourishing (eudemonia) is from Aristotle's Ethics.

Do you value truth and beauty along with the good? — Tom Storm

Yes, but do not give them equal status. I prefer Plato's "trinity", the just, the beautiful, and the good. But I do not regard them as eternal Forms. I think that is a misreading of Plato. I have made the case for that elsewhere on the forum.

And what people say (or think) they value is often not what they value in practice. — Tom Storm

Agreed. Good point.

So, you're a traditionalist! The notion of human flourishing (eudemonia) is from Aristotle's Ethics. — Fooloso4

Certainly.

Yes, but do not give them equal status. I prefer Plato's "trinity", the just, the beautiful, and the good. But I do not regard them as eternal Forms. I think that is a misreading of Plato. I have made the case for that elsewhere on the forum. — Fooloso4

Nice. Yes, I remember that debate.