If I have a task to complete, rejecting help will result in it taking longer to complete which is clearly sub-optimal.

If S doesn't approve of taking a shorter time to complete a task, S doesn't believe that it's recommendable, then in what sense is it better or more favorable to complete a task in a shorter rather than a longer period of time?

Completing a task in 1 hour versus 3 hours is different. (Obviously.) Now, you're saying that there's a preference to complete it in 1 hour rather than 3. Where is that preference coming from?

If S wants to take 3 hours rather than 1 (IE because S enjoys it) then offering help is wrong.

But I was referring to the situation where offering help is appropriate; IE S does not enjoy the task and some help from another would make it much easier. Often people can be helped just by dropping a word of advice. Time is money. Free time is valuable. Excepting help is right.

If S wants to take 3 hours rather than 1 (IE because S enjoys it) then offering help is wrong.

But I was referring to the situation where offering help is appropriate; IE S does not enjoy the task and some help from another would make it much easier. Often people can be helped just by dropping a word of advice. Time is money. Free time is valuable. Excepting help is right. — Devans99

But then it's not offering help that's good, because in the first case, the person doesn't want help, and you're saying that it's wrong to offer help in that case.

Hence why I said that good and bad (in an ethical context) are about the interpersonal behavior that people approve of, that they believe is recommendable, etc. It's about people's preferences, their desires, etc. It's not about particular actions regardless of anyone's preferences or desires.

If a person needs help its right to offer help. If a person does not need help, its wrong to offer help.

It's about people's preferences, their desires, — Terrapin Station

No its about maths. NET PLEASURE = PLEASURE - PAIN. It's about maximising net pleasure for the individual and the group.

No its about maths. NET PLEASURE = PLEASURE - PAIN. It's about maximising net pleasure for the individual and the group. — Devans99

What if someone doesn't approve of maximizing pleasure for the group, though?

You'd say that they're wrong. Well, again, they're wrong per what?

Good = the (inter)personal behavior you approve of, the (inter)personal behavior you feel is recommendable, etc.

Evil = the (inter)personal behavior you disapprove of as strongly as you can disapprove of anything. Mere "bad" is weaker--simply the (inter)personal behavior you disapprove of. "Evil" is on an extreme end of the scale. — Terrapin Station

"Evil" would be the product of intent. Bad not necessarily. For instance, someone trying to kill you is evil. Cancer trying to kill you is just "bad". Now, if God existed and created the cancer to kill you, then that would be the act of an evil God.

No its about maths. NET PLEASURE = PLEASURE - PAIN. It's about maximising net pleasure for the individual and the group. — Devans99


What if someone doesn't approve of maximizing pleasure for the group, though?

You'd say that they're wrong. Well, again, they're wrong per what? — Terrapin Station

I already gave the answer as to what is evil/bad right/good on the first page of this forum. It was ignored, so it is no surprise that this thread has continued on without a conclusion.

They are wrong - they will make themselves unpopular in the group which is detrimental to that individual in the long term.

"Evil" would be the product of intent. Bad not necessarily. For instance, someone trying to kill you is evil. Cancer trying to kill you is just "bad". Now, if God existed and created the cancer to kill you, then that would be the act of an evil God. — Harry Hindu

Again, my impression is that we were being asked about ethics/morality in this thread, not good/bad more generally than that. I don't recall why I had that impression now, but my answer was written in the context of ethics/morality.

which is detrimental to that individual in the long term. — Devans99

Wouldn't the pertinent info be whether they feel it's negative or positive (or neutral) to be unpopular in the group?

I'm trying to look at the issue objectively. I see bad/evil and good/right as part of the same coin - how events either inhibit our promote our goals. Unintentional and intentional events can affect our goals.

Well, but that only matters with respect to how the person feels about those things, though.

In other words, S says he has goal x. Y inhibits goal x. S winds up not feeling negatively about that, at least not overall, and maybe S even winds up feeling positive about it. What matters there for "good/bad" etc. are how S feels.

Wouldn't the pertinent info be whether they feel it's negative or positive (or neutral) to be unpopular in the group? — Terrapin Station

If the group is a right acting group, someone would be quite wrong to reject popularity within the group. If the group is wrong acting, then seeking popularity is still correct as it will be needed whilst fixing the group's negative aspects (IE if you are popular, they should listen when you tell them what is wrong).

Let us say that someone starts a war because they believe it will benefit humanity and that by bringing about this war billions of people will die, but in the aftermath a better society rises from teh ashes.

This person actively seeks to ethnically cleanse people, drops nukes, and knows that children will be tortured and slaughtered in thousands by the day.

Given the outcome is a nice society is creating such pain and suffering, such slaughter, “good” simply because the ourcome is deemed “good.”

One person’s utopia is often hell for many others.

Also, in the OP you’ve left out the possibility of short-term good causing long-term good. Do you think that is possible? If not why not mention it?

Given that we don’t really know the future then how are we to judge our actions today by what happens tomorrow, in a year, after we’re dead? By what means do we come to some decision? Or is the idea for us to simply resign ourselves to our own, or another’s, personal will?

Oy vey. I don't think we're getting anywhere. If the group is right or wrong acting to whom?

Does the group behave in an optimal manner that maximises pleasure and minimises pain for the individuals.

If the group sticks to what is right (pleasure>pain) for individuals, the group will be right as a whole.

Human beings have small differences but on the important stuff, right thinking people all agree (and wrong thinking people need to change).

Does the group behave in an optimal manner that maximises pleasure and minimises pain for the individuals. — Devans99

Maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain are only positive when someone feels that that's the best course of action.

When someone doesn't feel that that's the best course of action, then there's nothing positive about it.

Likewise, x is optimal compared to y is purely a matter of an individual's preferences.

Well, but that only matters with respect to how the person feels about those things, though.

In other words, S says he has goal x. Y inhibits goal x. S winds up not feeling negatively about that, at least not overall, and maybe S even winds up feeling positive about it. What matters there for "good/bad" etc. are how S feels. — Terrapin Station

Spoken just like someone who responds too quickly to posts without thinking things through and who wants to argue for the sake of arguing.

You've moved the goal posts here and it still doesn't make your argument work. Now you're talking about over time how the victim sees the past event. Good and bad things will happen post event. Anyone can point to those good events and say that they wouldn't come about if that special event, that I thought was bad, didn't happen.

Let's take your argument and run a variable through it. If someone kills you in your sleep, you no longer have any feelings about it afterwards. So, does that make killing you in your sleep a non-moral act, like mowing your lawn?

Let us say that someone starts a war because they believe it will benefit humanity and that by bringing about this war billions of people will die, but in the aftermath a better society rises from teh ashes — I like sushi

War is wrong. There are better ways to change a government than war.

One person’s utopia is often hell for many other — I like sushi

Can you give an example?

Also, in the OP you’ve left out the possibility of short-term good causing long-term good. Do you think that is possible? If not why not mention it? — I like sushi

Yes, I call that right squared.

I am sure you would agree with this claim that "murder is wrong" — princessofdarkness

I think "wrong" is such a thorny concept that even this (above) can be wrong. Think about it for a few moments and you will be able to develop a particular scenario in which murder is not wrong....

Maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain are only positive when someone feels that that's the best course of action — Terrapin Station

These are the bodies signals of right and wrong. Someone would have to be seriously maladjusted if they did not seek to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. Such a person needs help.

Spoken just like someone who responds too quickly to posts without thinking things through — Harry Hindu

I've been doing this stuff for more than 40 years.

You've moved the goal posts — Harry Hindu

What were the goal posts?

Let's take your argument and run a variable through it. If someone kills you in your sleep, you no longer have any feelings about it afterwards. So, does that make killing you in your sleep a non-moral act, like mowing your lawn? — Harry Hindu

You just chastised me about responding too quickly, and yet you seem to have no understanding of what my view is.

Good and bad are ways that people feel about things. You correlated it to goals/goal achievement, etc. I pointed out that it's only correlated to goals/goal achievement per how an individual feels about it, where not achieving a goal, or being inhibited in achieveing it, can result in feeling any way towards it--positive, negative, anything in between.

So in the example you're presenting, good/bad hinge purely on how individuals think about it. Different individuals think differently. Hence, good and bad are relative to individuals.

To answer "Is x a moral or non-moral (or immoral, etc.) act," we have to ask someone who can think about it and give an answer. Obviously, a person can not do this after they're dead. To a dead person, nothing is or isn't moral, non-moral, etc. We have to ask the living people, while they're alive. While I'm alive, I'd unsurprisingly not morally agree with being murdered. The person who is murdering me might have a different opinion.

War is wrong? Can you prove this to be correct? Obviously we all know war leaves many dead and injured. If we’re fighting “evil” then is it okay to make war against what is “evil”? If not then you’ve found a difficult problem to deal with in which “evil” always wins the war (because no one opposes it.)

An obvious example would be either fascism or communism. If you want something more specifc then any ideology taken to an extreme (by which I mean personal views and opinions asserted as universal truths.) Another example would be someone who thinks the world should adhere to some strict religious doctrine and that homosexuals should be slaughtered.

Why do you call it “right squared”? Saying that good can lead to bad or good, and that bad can led to good or bad is not really worth mentioning as far as I can tell. What am I missing?

Someone would have to be seriously maladjusted if they did not seek to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. Such a person needs help. — Devans99

Basically you're saying that there's something inherently wrong with being highly unusual. I don't at all agree with that.

War is wrong? Can you prove this to be correct? — I like sushi

War is not the optimal solution to any problem, so it is always wrong.

An obvious example would be either fascism or communism — I like sushi

These are both extreme viewpoints; extremism is generally wrong.

Why do you call it “right squared”? Saying that good can lead to bad or good, and that bad can led to good or bad is not really worth mentioning as far as I can tell. What am I missing? — I like sushi

Most things that are right are painful in the short term. Being pleasurable in both short and long term is unusual so I call it right squared.

Most things that are wrong are pleasurable in the short term. Being painful in both short and long term is unusual so I call it wrong squared.

I didn’t say “optimal.” I said in some situations it is necessary to war with “evil” (unless you wish to allow evil to ravage everything.)

Is it an “extreme” view to say “war is always wrong.”? It is certainly an absolute claim and I’d call anyone asserting an absolute as holding to (or leaning toward) an extremist viewpoint where reality is taken as being binary (black and white.) Appealing, and even useful for simplifying an argument in order to examine it more closely, but often deeply misguiding if used as an unwavering “correctness.”

So this means that when you say “war is always wrong” that it is then not one of those kind of extremist views you deem as “generally wrong.”

Most things that are right are painful short term? Is that anecdotal or do you have some evidence to back it up? I would roughly agree with that though. Things worth knowing and doing come at a price. What is “right” in my book is to strive on regardless of apparent “unfair” failings and to be thankful when pleasure comes my way.

You could’ve simply said “life is hard.” I don’t think anyone really needs much empirical data to agee with that sentiment. It is not without tests and tribulations. I don’t readily engage with paain and suffering though merely becasue I deem it “good.” I understand that I must risk being wrong in order to improve. I also understand that I will always fail somewhere no matter what I do, yet I continue and will comtinue to continue.

Sometimes you are forced into doing the wrong thing. But it's still the wrong thing. Anything that is not optimal is technically wrong. War is about as far from optimal as is imaginable.

You could’ve simply said “life is hard.” — I like sushi

Life is hard because people make the wrong decisions; they optimise for the short term rather than the long term. Much of life is about short term sacrifice for long term gain. A clear definition of right and wrong would help people live better lives.

Spoken just like someone who responds too quickly to posts without thinking things through — Harry Hindu

I've been doing this stuff for more than 40 years. — Terrapin Station

You've been responding too quickly to posts without thinking things through for more than 40 years. Yes, I can see how that could be the case.

What were the goal posts? — Terrapin Station

I explained that in my previous post. Take the time to read before posting a reply.

Good and bad are ways that people feel about things. You correlated it to goals/goal achievement, etc. I pointed out that it's only correlated to goals/goal achievement per how an individual feels about it, where not achieving a goal, or being inhibited in achieveing it, can result in feeling any way towards it--positive, negative, anything in between. — Terrapin Station

This is total BS. Having your goals inhibited makes you feel wronged, or else you didn't have your goals inhibited. When would anyone feel good about their goals being inhibited? If they feel good about it, it's because they realized that it wasn't necessarily a goal of theirs. How do you feel about your stuff being stolen? Wouldn't you feel wronged because you have the goal of keeping your stuff in your possession?

Having your goals inhibited makes you feel wronged, or else you didn't have your goals inhibited. When would anyone feel good about their goals being inhibited? If they feel good about it, — Harry Hindu

All you're really saying here is that if someone doesn't feel wronged by having a "goal" inhibited, you're not going to agree to calling it a goal, because it turns out that definitionally, you require that it's something that one would feel wronged re it being inhibited for you to call it a goal.

That simply tells us something about how you use language.