Even if something is not directly relevant to one’s survival, if it affects the organism in a meaningful manner, there will in some way be a relation to a survival mechanism. — Vivek

What kind of survival are we talking about? A rock survives as itself only to the extent that it remains more or less self identical over time. But a living organism will perish if it remains exactly the same. What the organism attempts to preserve is a normative pattern of functioning in the face of continually changing conditions. And as for humans, our normative patterns of functioning, our goals and purposes, are continually changing over the course of cultural history. Within any given era and community, for each individual there will be particular goals and purposes, and the criterion of good and bad is aligned according to such goals. But as the cultural communities evolve, what constitutes good and bad changes along with purposes. If there is anything consistent which ‘survives’ all these transformations of the human perhaps it is the simple fact of pattern itself. Only something that changes itself in a patterned way can know good and bad. The moment a rock is formed it is already on its way to no long being a rock, because it doesn’t perpetuate itself in a consistently patterned way.

The answer lies within the question itself. It is in relation to ourselves. It is in relation to us being alive. It is in relation to our very fundamental essence as living things. To live! To survive! To thrive! — Vivek

This is shitty Randian claims to non-existent properties. The only possible way this gets off the ground is admitted it is entirely subjective. And then that defeats the premise. So, good luck!

You're right that on it's own it is subjective. This is the text that follows in the chapter :wink:
"This on its own, however, does not help us determine what is right or wrong specifically. We can easily descend into murderous chaos in the notion that our actions are for survival or self-preservation. To go deeper, we must first, go beyond."

Brilliant! So the is-ought problem is not solved. :)

It is, because is-ought isn't about specific prescriptions but the nature of prescription itself.

There's an obvious difference between doing what is good and doing what you want.

How do you identify what is good? Is good situational or intrinsic? Or is good, like truth, a range of potentialities?

Have a read of Moore's Principia Ethica. Then Philippa Foot. Then Martha Nussbaum.

, good to see that you have done some reading. Tell us, what in your opinion is the Open Question Argument, and how does it relate to the topic?

The argument is about the nature of right and wrong, saying it isn't reducible to a property on its own. Which is correct, it isn't the property, but rather the relation and effect of the property to the entity being alive.

Have a read of Moore's Principia Ethica. Then Philippa Foot. Then Martha Nussbaum. — Banno

Fair enough. Probably won't have time. I did read Nussbaum's Capability Approach. It all seems very middle class (human rights/human dignity). Does she not essentially argue that human flourishing should be the universal goal of all ethical systems? Which doesn't mean it is wrong. But not being a philosopher, I can't tell if this stuff is useful or not. I need others with some deeper reading/interest to talk about it.

SO you are claiming that what is good stands in some sort of relation to something that is alive? What is the nature of that relation? "To live! To survive! To thrive!"?

Is that right?

Probably won't have time. — Tom Storm

A shame.

Yes.

It is, because is-ought isn't about specific prescriptions but the nature of prescription itself. — Vivek

THis wouldn't get you closer to solving it, and it isn't the case. It's a preference of yours for reading hte term 'the good'. This violates its applicability to anyone else, but the person who assents to this reading of 'the good' as a relationship property. This is the entire issue in a nutshell, seemingly ignored, as it is in the Objectivist Ethics by commanding assent to a particular desire ("To Live! To Surive! To Thrive!"). Its not relevant that rejecting that desire might be irrational (whatever else could be so rational as to continue being?). But incredulity doesn't help. More on that below..

As soon as that assent is denied, the relation fails.

Have a read of Moore's Principia Ethica. Then Philippa Foot. Then Martha Nussbaum. — Banno

Good suggestions, but I don't think referring to other people is a good way to answer a direct question about your conceptions, is it? If the idea is that your view is directly derivative, providing three sources across two, arguably three generations, might not be as helpful as you think. Then again - it's TPF lol.

I need others with some deeper reading/interest to talk about it. — Tom Storm

It is useful for understanding human behaviour, but it essentially is a position (in all versions I've seen, from Moore to Harris) that relies on mere incredulity in the face of denial. This, to me, is left wanting and doesn't inform me at all.

So what is good is to survive, to live, to thrive?

Can you think of something that enables you to survive, and yet that is not good? Something that enables you to thrive, and yet is not good?

I'm not going to get into applied ethics for now, but if you're interested there's a link to a book I wrote in my profile that deals with meta, applied ethics and more :smile: .

Hmm. Finished, then? Nothing here inspires me to read your book. Cheers.

Have a read of Moore's Principia Ethica. Then Philippa Foot. Then Martha Nussbaum.
— Banno

Fair enough. Probably won't have time. I did read Nussbaum's Capability Approach. It all seems very middle class (human rights/human dignity). Does she not essentially argue that human flourishing should be the universal goal of all ethical systems? Which doesn't mean it is wrong. But not being a philosopher, I can't tell if this stuff is useful or not. I need others with some deeper reading/interest to talk about it. — Tom Storm

I’ll save you the trouble of reading the other two. It’s the usual reliance on some universalistic grounding of ethical normativity mixed with a sprinkling of cultural situatedness.
Let’s just say I find their universalism to be riddled with parochialism.

Thanks for that, Josh. Most helpful.

↪Joshs Thanks for that, Josh. Most helpful — Banno

Let’s see if it helps Tom.

I support, in other words, your interpretation. I also hope this helps Tom avoid similarly circular arguments.

For some value of "helps".

This is from a book I've recently published. A link to it is available in my profile if anyone is interested. — Vivek

A self-published Amazon title with a one-sentence description and no customer feedback. Reported to moderators as self-promotion in accordance with site guidelines against "Advertisers, spammers, self-promoters".

So what if it's self-published and new? And I've discussed the main point of the thread, I'm just not going to go on a tangent to other topics.

Well, how else will Vivek get sales?

What are the site rules about spruiking, @Jamal?

I'm just not going to go on a tangent to other topics. — Vivek

But

G.E. Moore asks a similar question. What exactly do we mean when we say something is good? What does it mean when we say something is right or wrong? — Vivek

I asked you to apply this to your "survive, to live, to thrive"... looks bang on topic to me.

Like I've said, Moore's argument is about meta ethics, you're asking about applied ethics, which requires further elaboration and would take the topic in another direction.

I'm asking you to apply Moore's open question to your definition of "good". It's a meta ethical request. I suspect that you realise the problem, and that's why you won't oblige me.

Seems to me - without reading your book - that the bit you are missing is how ethics intrinsically involves not what you want, but how you relate to other folk.

But it's up to you whether you choose to reply or no.

I love watching cats fight over the remote to a TV they can't turn on.

I’ll save you the trouble of reading the other two. It’s the usual reliance on some universalistic grounding of ethical normativity mixed with a sprinkling of cultural situatedness.
Let’s just say I find their universalism to be riddled with parochialism. — Joshs

Seems to me that people are forever banging on about 'the good', as if it were out there to be discovered, or simply a matter of common sense, but actually, it seems slippery, a contingent thing, a piece of construction work. I am happy to be guided by the idea that one should try not to cause suffering and work to prevent it. But this is always tied to a point of view, or a set of values. There is no transcendent source material.