↪Leontiskos I've read that but I can't see where it's actually explained what "good" means. It only seems to say that good is a "transcendental" and so not reducible to some natural property. There is mention of "desires", but it clarifies that it's not that something is good because we desire it but that we desire it because it is good.
So all I get from this is that "good" is supervenient and desirable. It still seems that "good" is undefined. How am I to distinguish "good" from some other supervenient and desirable property? Even if it's the only supervenient and desirable property, unless "good" means "supervenient and desirable" it is as-of-yet undefined.
Am I just misreading or misunderstanding the paper? — Michael
Hence it is clear that goodness and being are the same really. But goodness presents the aspect of desirableness, which being does not present. — Aquinas, ST Ia.Q5.A1
And don't get me wrong. I am a moral realist and have no difficulty talking metaphysics. I think an act is right or wrong, not subject to my subjective definitions or beliefs. — Hanover
I think the moral realist's point is to treat good and bad in axiomatic terms, to take them for granted, to take one's understanding of them for granted.You are quite forward about being unable to define good and bad, and so I am focusing on those. Usually someone who cannot define good or bad does not go on to depend on those words in their philosophical or moral theories. — Leontiskos
If I push down your hand and see your cards, would you say I've violated a rule that applies to someone other than you, or are we always playing different games, free to do as we will, living in the fray of free expression? — Hanover
are we always playing different games, free to do as we will, living in the fray of free expression? — Hanover
You seem to be saying that we learn what it means to be good by looking at what all good things have in common? But how do we determine that something is good in the first place?
You say helping the sick is good. I say helping the sick isn't good. Where do we go from there?
Surely being a triangle is a mind-independent state of affairs? Some object either is or isn't a three-sided shape, regardless of what we believe or say. But in your OP you say that being good isn't a mind-independent state of affairs?
No, the very fact that you revise your ideas and write long posts is evidence that you are not approaching these topics glibly.
Okay, so you think goodness is act-centric, but you are thinking beyond human acts.
In the case of #1, you would be disagreeing that the word ‘good’ should be used to refer to ‘acts which promote flourishing’; and, to that, my response is, briefly, that I think this is historically how the word tends to be used. We say ‘I am doing good’ when our bodies are healthy (i.e., our body parts are acting in harmony and unity to accomplish survival and thriving) and our goals are being fulfilled; and, most universally, we say ‘everything is going good’ when everyone is acting in harmony such that each person is respected and sufficiently sovereign. Likewise, when we say society is ‘doing good’, we usually mean that each part of the society is acting in harmony and unity to achieve the safety and sufficient sovereignty of its citizens. You see the pattern. — Bob Ross
In the case of #1, you would be disagreeing that the word ‘good’ should be used to refer to ‘acts which promote flourishing’; and, to that, my response is, briefly, that I think this is historically how the word tends to be used. We say ‘I am doing good’ when our bodies are healthy (i.e., our body parts are acting in harmony and unity to accomplish survival and thriving) and our goals are being fulfilled; and, most universally, we say ‘everything is going good’ when everyone is acting in harmony such that each person is respected and sufficiently sovereign. Likewise, when we say society is ‘doing good’, we usually mean that each part of the society is acting in harmony and unity to achieve the safety and sufficient sovereignty of its citizens. You see the pattern. — Bob Ross
Correct. — Bob Ross
So acts which promote flourishing are good because we have historically used the word "good" to describe acts which promote flourishing? This seems to be a kind of constructivism: moral facts are established by the conventions of our language use. — Michael
Ross is saying that acts which promote flourishing are good because that is what 'good' means, and we know what 'good' means by looking at the way the word is used. — Leontiskos
Ethics cannot be done from an armchair, — Bob Ross
Ok that particular is fine. It is something the senses can seize upon to make a category distinct.I would say that we do it like any other categories we make: we induce it from particulars.
I see this right triangle, that obtuse triangle, that isosceles triangle, etc. and I formulate/induce the general category of a triangle. — Bob Ross
Nope. You're totally off the rails there. You cannot judge what is good without some standard. There is nothing here for a declared subjectivist to lock onto. You say x, Fred says Y, Rita likes z. Nope. You have made a useless category.I see someone helping the needy, being nice to someone else, being respectful, upholding a beings sovereignty, etc. and I induce the general category of the good. — Bob Ross
Same trouble. The complexity of your categories in these good/bad judgments requires a second meta level of pattern matching not possible without some n-dimensional similarity and that is exactly what you are trying to refute. You are proving objective morality, not your case.I see someone torturing a baby for fun, a person being incredibly rude, a person demeaning another, a person being incredibly selfish, a person having complete disregard for life, etc. and I induce the category of the bad. — Bob Ross
Nope, and for the reasons mentioned.Just like how I can separate triangles into one pile and squares into another, and more generally shapes into one pile and non-shapes into another, I, too, can put generous acts into one pile and respectful acts into another, and more generally good acts into one pile and bad acts into another. — Bob Ross
I agree on this spreading and uncertain breakpoint analysis. Just like electron shell discretion in quantum mechanics there do seem to be a lot of this cant or this must rules in life. But is the fact that people can even agree on a category at all over time a hint at some meta level order to the universe? Is awareness then subjective, really. If we get it more right, it's closer to something. What is that? It's objective truth. Is awareness part of morality?Am I going to sort each into each pile 100% accurately? Probably not. Does that take away from the plentiful evidence that the categories do exist? Certainly not. — Bob Ross
So acts which promote flourishing are good because we have historically used the word "good" to describe acts which promote flourishing? This seems to be a kind of constructivism: moral facts are established by the conventions of our language use.
I think that you're on the right track, but I think that this is a form of anti-realism, not realism.
Though this is an interesting take if we consider other languages.
So, as I asked before, how do we determine whether or not something which is claimed to be moral really is moral?
If we can't do that then we can't look to the things that are claimed to be moral to determine what "moral" means, as we may be looking at things that aren't moral.
Regardless, we have to distinguish the type of use that establishes the meaning of a word from the type of use that is a fallible act of predication. It's not entirely clear which kind of use is in play when we say that acts which promote flourishing are good.
You seem to be proffering something akin to virtue ethics.
It seems to me that he is simply defending his definition of 'good' by recourse to use. Ross is saying that acts which promote flourishing are good because that is what 'good' means, and we know what 'good' means by looking at the way the word is used. If you think the word means something else, then you should say what you think it means.
is correct in saying that the good has to do with flourishing, and flourishing bears on motivation, then of course we must be motivated to seek the good.
Hi! I started a thread on Happiness and was redirected here to relate it to my assertion of objective morality. Sounds fun! Here I am! My second thread only.
Aw, sure it can. Ethics can be done from anywhere, at anytime, by anyone. (This is the) Protestant Reformation of your faith.
Nope. You're totally off the rails there. You cannot judge what is good without some standard. There is nothing here for a declared subjectivist to lock onto. You say x, Fred says Y, Rita likes z. Nope. You have made a useless category.
Then if you start to describe what is this good thing about any action/belief, a reasonable amount of people have to agree or it would just be chaos
People from random parts of the world may have some glaring differences but the generally sense and came up with the same patterns and indeed can relate the goodness thing in one action to the same goodness thing in another. So not only does it have the pattern it has but it is also deemed GOOD, a second step you are ignoring.
The complexity of your categories in these good/bad judgments requires a second meta level of pattern matching not possible without some n-dimensional similarity and that is exactly what you are trying to refute.
For you, what is the difference, the distinguishing factor, between the triangle analogy and The Good such that you would accept the former and reject the latter?
...
I think people do generally agree. We see a basic triangle and say “yep, that’s a triangle”. Likewise, we see someone feeding a starving child and say “yep, that’s good”. Perhaps, to help convey my point, strip the general conception of The Good of the word ‘good’: let’s call it G instead. G is just the general conception of acts which promote flourishing, and is abduced from particular acts [which promote flourishing]. No different than how the general conception of a triangle, let’s call it T instead to remove semantics, is the general conception of a “three-sided shape”, and is abduced from its particulars (e.g., a right triangle [a right T], an obtuse triangle [an obtuse T], etc). — Bob Ross
What subjectvists do not understand is this short and simple: If morality were subjective all stability as 'good' is not something you can put forth or depend on. You have embraced pure chaos.
“we can determine the concept of a triangle from particular triangles, but how do we know, first and foremost, what a triangle is?”: well, the former is what determines the latter. — Bob Ross
What subjectvists do not understand is this short and simple: If morality were subjective all stability as 'good' is not something you can put forth or depend on. — Chet Hawkins
The Good is not normative. — Bob Ross
It’s when we try to get people to justify The Good where things get confused and diverse. — Bob Ross
Yes, but I would say my OP doesn’t really support that; but I do support it. — Bob Ross
That’s true. Yes, we do seek flourishing. However, I would say, by default, we are only motivated (usually) towards the lowest Good, which is egoism (i.e., my flourishing). I am not sure that we are, by default, motivated towards the highest Good, which is universal flourishing. Only after grasping the good, intellectually (to some extent), do we acquire motivation towards the highest Good. — Bob Ross
Regardless, we have to distinguish the type of use that establishes the meaning of a word from the type of use that is a fallible act of predication. It's not entirely clear which kind of use is in play when we say that acts which promote flourishing are good. — Michael
1. A three-sided shape is a triangle
2. This plastic object is a triangle
Whereas (1) is true by definition, (2) isn't, and so (2) is possibly false. If (2) is false then looking at that plastic object isn't going to help us determine the meaning of the word "triangle". — Michael
But this does seem problematic. We often say that people of other cultures (with their own language) have different moral values. How can this be unless relevant words share meaning across languages but are used to describe different things?
Perhaps it's more accurate to say that we use the word "good" to describe things that we ought do and the word "bad" to describe things that we ought not do. This is somewhat supported by the etymology of the related word "moral", from the Latin "moralis" meaning "proper behavior of a person in society". Other languages have their own words used the same way. We just disagree on which things we ought and ought not do. — Michael
In order to understand the meaning of a predication, one must understand the meaning of the words within the predication — Leontiskos
The point here is that if two people disagree with respect to a predication, "X is good," then they are either disagreeing about what good is or else they are disagreeing about what X is. — Leontiskos
I’m not arguing for cultural relativism. — Michael
The first culture describes some X as being A. The second culture describes that same X as being not B.
This is an entirely plausible scenario. Even though “A” means “B” they are used to describe different things. What this shows is that we cannot determine the meaning of “A” (or “B” or “good”) simply by looking at what sort of things are described as being “A” (or “B” or “good”).
In this scenario, one of the cultures is wrong.
So it isn’t as simple as saying “good” means “promotes flourishing” because we use the word “good” to describe acts which promote flourishing. Like one of the cultures above we might be wrong. — Michael
The point here is that if two people disagree with respect to a predication, "X is good," then they are either disagreeing about what good is or else they are disagreeing about what X is. — Leontiskos
So it isn’t as simple as saying “good” means “promotes flourishing” because we use the word “good” to describe acts which promote flourishing. Like one of the cultures above we might be wrong. — Michael
The only proper response is to offer an alternative definition of good — Leontiskos
The meaning of words comes from language users, and is tied up with their intent. This intent is generally communal/linguistic, but it is always a back-and-forth between the community and the individual. — Leontiskos
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.