Philosophers tend to avoid use of (or for that matter, even belief in) the word and its prescriptive concept of "evil" over more objective and easily defined concepts such as "socially-destructive" and "willfully inhumane and unethical".

What, assuming you are like most people, would you not like done to you, and why? What has humanity throughout thousands of years lived and fought wars and died to prevent? And on the other hand, to preserve? These are your starting points.

(Note: I will likely catch some flack for implying an intrinsic connection between ethics and human history/evolution. Let's instead use "desire" or "widely-held will" of humanity. Many human efforts and wars were to simply prolong an existing state of affairs, whether or not that state of affairs is based on "goodness" or "evil" ie. protecting a society propped up solely through perpetual conquest and exploitation of other innocent people, for example. With that exception, things like safety and predictable production of goods. Things that contribute to an environment that facilitates the greatest flourishing of human potential that minimizes things such as suffering, strife, crime, unpredictable violence, existential dread, etc.)

Philosophers tend to avoid use of ["good"]... — Outlander

Or maybe just Humeans avoid it. Ethicists who do not use the word or concept 'good' are probably not doing ethics at all.

"socially-destructive" and "willfully inhumane and unethical". — Outlander

But how can we define something inhumane or unethical if we do not have bad/evil establish?

These are your starting points. — Outlander

Thanks for your insights they were of great help, I have a lot to think

So whats your concept of good? what makes a behavior good or bad, how do you measure that?

But how can we define something inhumane or unethical if we do not have bad/evil establish? — Matias Isoo

Inhumane is an absolute. That which is detrimental to or grossly inconsiderate of a human person. A human person being an intelligent albeit vulnerable organism that can experience and (generally) has a desire to avoid pain while seeking contentment, comradery, and purpose. That which denies or deprives the humanity and perceived natural rights of a human person.

Unethical is somewhat also of an absolute. That which directly or indirectly denies or deprives a human person the rights and dignities granted to personhood. Or causes something to that affect for sentient beings ie. chopping down a rain forest or over-fishing a species to extinction or near-extinction. I suppose you could say ethics is like humaneness but covers all that is sentient or can directly or indirectly affect that which is sentient.

More objective absolutes such as the above are often used in favor of "evil". They are synonymous, however. To most, at least.

rights and dignities granted to personhood — Outlander

But who grants this rights and dignities? The law? And what law are we talking about? The commands of Jesus? The sharia law? The court law?
How can we defined something ethical or unethical if not by a set of rules?
Do you have your own set of rules? Or do you follow a already establish set?

What question should I make? — Matias Isoo

Try: What is the purpose of defining good? That is, Why do I need to make this distinction?
To acknowledge that some things are good and some things are bad is to exercise judgment. Why do you want to exercise judgment? Why do other people?

I would start with: which good - personal or social?
Personal good is whatever contributes the individual's continued survival, welfare and happiness.
Social good is whatever contributes to the well-being of the community.
Very often, these two kinds of good are in conflict, which is why societies establish rules that apply to everyone - whether a religious moral code or a secular code of ethics. Both can be enacted as laws. In a theocracy, the religious one is applied across the board; in a secular state, laws are devised for the benefit of the ruling elite, the polity or the dominant faction.
The confusion begins when religious precepts bleed into the legal code of a nominally secular nation and are imposed on both the religious, who may reject the secular aspects and the non-religious, who resent being constrained by dogma.

Defining and measuring are not appropriate or even possible at this early stage in your enquiry. But you have an understanding of what 'good' means in various contexts.

A good dog is a dog that obeys its master. So you might be asking what constitutes a good human. Something different, I think, but in saying that, and assuming you agree, we already know that a good human has a relation to other humans that is not characterised by command and obedience, but in a more equal and perhaps mutual way.

But perhaps that isn't your question. Perhaps you want to say simply that a good human is one that performs good acts. Then there is a difficulty that a good plumber performs different acts than a good footballer.

But however it is, the way to proceed is not to make out that being an atheist prevents you from ascribing any meaning to a commonplace word. Atheists and the religious alike have to live in the world somehow, and have to decide what they think it good to do. and when you have decided that you are in that position along with the rest of us, we can start to exchange ideas on what we think it good to do, and see if there is any common ground.

So I decide to build my own set of rules and values, this is my first attempt and I will need your help, so where should I begin? What question should I make? — Matias Isoo

This will always be contested space and I have never been too much concerned by notions of good or bad. It's slippery and imprecise. I generally hold that to deliberately cause or allow suffering is bad and to work to minimise suffering or end it is good. How we measure this and how we define suffering is where the fun begins. There are a range of foundations for defining the good - from that which promotes human flourishing to those who argue that good is contextually constructed - a product of human preferences and emotions.

But who grants this rights and dignities? — Matias Isoo

Religious people naturally believe such rights are divine, and even non-religious people nod to a similar concept (albeit divorced of any actual divinity) in the common usage of "God-given rights". What's relevant is not who or what granted it, but who or what enforces it. Which at the time is every non-isolationist nation who partakes in modern society and the free trade and travel that comes with.

To avoid a non-answer, I suppose in pragmatic terms it is granted (and more importantly, enforced) by the regional government. Not to say out of sheer good will or higher understanding, mind you, often for the reasons mentioned (trade, travel, inclusion and to no lesser degree, protection with/by the rest of the world). A bit of a shaky foundation in any sort of objective sense, sure. But nonetheless the way of the modern age. It's "what we have to work with". Wasn't always that way, and for all we know might not always be. But for now, it's reality. No different for all intents and purposes than say, gravity. Sure, people commit crimes and violate the law, some even get away with it. But more so than not, the rights and dignities of persons are enshrined with notable attempts to protect such in stable, developed countries.

I suppose it can be noted, from a strictly worldly view, it's ultimately a human construct, no different than declaring a particular color "the best color" and enshrining such a judgement as law of the land. So it's a bit poky, given thorough philosophical scrutiny, admittedly. Basically, the majority of people got together and decided "You know, life is better without everyone running around killing everyone" and made such a perspective into law. Unless you are chained to a floor or wearing an explosive neck collar that will detonate upon leaving whatever country you're in, you willfully accept and participate in the base, most fundamental laws of that society, those laws being along the lines of human rights to life and dignity. You must. Otherwise you will be imprisoned or penalized upon being found guilty of acting in such a manner that violates these laws, or so the law prescribes.

How can we defined something ethical or unethical if not by a set of rules?
Do you have your own set of rules? Or do you follow a already establish set? — Matias Isoo

Therein lies the debate. What is good? What is ethical? Why? Who says so? Absent of any sort of theistic source, such concepts seem to logically fall into the category of subjectivity. Along the lines of "it is because we say it is", which admittedly leaves much to be desired for the objectivity seeker. De facto understanding and social norms seem to emerge as a sort of "guidance" (what makes me go "ouch" will make another person go "ouch", we have laws that say you cannot make another person go "ouch" for that is despised and socially-viewed as criminality by the majority).

None of that is very satisfying to the person seeking a concrete non-theistic answer, of course. So, the options appear to be either "good and ethical does not exist, except as opinions, which are ultimately no more correct or incorrect or right or wrong than the next" or "goodness and ethics are based on the will of humanity writ-large supported by objective things such as what is harmful or destructive to human beings or human societies versus what is pleasing and beneficial to them".

Personally, I follow the law, as I live in a modern, developed society that, at least on paper, purports to protect the dignity and rights of all human persons coupled with my personal intuition of what feels right or wrong based on empathy (ie. What if that person were me? How would I like to be treated? Etc.)

Be advised however, I've been reprimanded, several times, for my purporting to link "ethics" with "human nature" or "evolution". Apparently, that's an unsound belief not rooted in any sort of intrinsic or objective reality. Enslavement of persons, for example, was once a social norm. Justified by things such as "another empire would have just killed them" or "they wouldn't have survived on their own" or "our slaves live better lives than most nobles of Empire B, we did them a favor helping them avoid the inevitable fate of enslavement by Empire B whose slaves are physically abused for pleasure, whereas ours are not", etc. While any number of those claims may not only have been true but factual as far as a better outcome for the enslaved, humanity has evolved to do "one better" and eliminate slavery altogether (for the most part, human trafficking is very much alive and well).

Basically, I'm just calling it how I see it. With the belief that while I may not be satisfactorily answering all of your questions, I may be offering some sort of guidance toward the path that does contain, or will lead you to, the answers you seek. At least, I'm hopeful of such.

So I decide to build my own set of rules and values, this is my first attempt and I will need your help, so where should I begin? What question should I make?

Good luck, my friend! Ethics is an interesting topic indeed.

If I could do it over again, then this is what I would advise my younger self (in this order):

1. What is the concept of ‘good’? What does that refer to?

2. What would a kind of ‘good’ that is objective be (in principle)?

3. Are there any such objective goods? Viz., is there anything that is objectively good?

4. If there are no objective goods, then what would a non-objective good be like (in principle)?

5. What is morality? What is that the study of?

6. What kinds of goods, be it objective or non-objective, would be morally relevant?

7. How should one behave in such a manner as to abide by what is morally good?

8. How should we, as a society, pragmatically setup our institutions to best establish and preserve what is morally good?

My biggest advice is: don’t skip steps. It is really enticing and easy to skip steps, but it will ruin your ethical theory. Most people want to start with the cool and interesting thought experiments: don’t do that—build your way up.

I may not be satisfactorily answering all of your questions — Outlander

You did more than enough, you open,my eyes to a lot of new ideas
thanks my friend

Good doesn’t have a definition, but if you think you can build your own set of rules, you must already have an idea of what good will be.

I suspect, when you go about building a set of rules, you’ll find you’re only discovering them.

Where should you begin, then?

Stop asking where to begin.

So I decide to build my own set of rules and values, this is my first attempt and I will need your help, so where should I begin? What question should I make? — Matias Isoo

Begin at looking what brings happiness. Happiness not just for you, but for the others who are involved as well. The idea is from Aristotle. Read Ethics by Aristotle.

He says, the purpose of human life is happiness. What makes us happy? Not just one party, but the other party involved. Whatever makes and brings happiness to all parties is Good, according to him.

Sometimes it is tricky to make everyone happy. In that case, everyone has to meet in the mid point where they find happiness. Achieving that, is Good.

If your loved one lost eyes, and lost sight. You give him / her your eyes sounds doing good. But you lose your sight. That is good for him / her, but it is not good for you. The mid point is not met. It is NOT Good.

You must rather take him / her to the eye doctor to repair the eye to regain the sight. If it worked, it is good for him / her (due to regaining the sight), and it is good for you (you helped your loved one to regain the sight albeit with some expense). The mid point is met. That was Good.

Your question, taken literally, is asking about the meaning of the word 'good'. It has various definitions which are already set by customary usage. You can't change those. For example, one meaning of good is 'yummy', as in "This cream cake is very good". So you might start with a dictionary and run through the various usages we already have.

Another usage of 'good', which you may or may not find in a dictionary, but which I suggest is a definition which describes usage is 'that which is valued'. For example "Democracy is good" means "democracy is valuable"

There comes a point where theory takes over from definition. People disgaree, for example, about whether what is good is always relative to a point of view. Some would argue, "Democracy is good" has no meaning without an explicit or implicit point of view, whereas "I value democracy, democracy is good for me" does have meaning because it specifies a point of view.

It has various definitions which are already set by customary usage. — bert1

Good observation!
So, think of a definition that covers all of its uses. Something like: that which most closely approaches a preconceived standard. What is a cake supposed to be? What makes a cake fail in that requirement; what makes it succeed? In what context is the comparison made? When one is parched in a desert, and you're offered an excellent cake, you cannot value it - or evaluate it.
Good is always relative to something.

As an atheist by practice and agnostic by believe how can I define whats good from evil?
I have had this question for a long time, but only recently that I gave it serious thought. So I decide to build my own set of rules and values, this is my first attempt and I will need your help, so where should I begin? What question should I make? — Matias Isoo

Just picture who you want to be and what kind of environment you want to be in 5 years from now. You're like an arrow shooting through time. Good is whatever is conducive to the arrow's path toward your vision. Evil is whatever makes the arrow deviate down some other path. As long as your goal is in keeping with deeper imperatives, and not frivolous bullshit, it will be relatively easy, though trials and torments are part of any path.

Good and evil are just ideas you use to keep the vision clear in your mind. They don't serve any other purpose.

Positive outcomes.

Having a good heart is having a heart filled with opportunity to create things that benefit you. You would have purpose, you would have opportunities to create a beneficent circumstance.

Philosophers tend to avoid use of (or for that matter, even belief in) the word and its prescriptive concept of "evil" over more objective and easily defined concepts such as "socially-destructive" and "willfully inhumane and unethical".

No, they absolutely do not. All ethicists talk fundamentally in terms of what is good, bad, immoral, moral, etc. What you seemed to do here, is migrate the discussion immediately in favor of moral anti-realism; when the OP is asking more generically about ethics.

What, assuming you are like most people, would you not like done to you, and why?

What you described here is pyschology, not ethics. What one likes doesn’t matter when one is trying to decipher what the concept of good is: either there such a think as ‘being good’ or there isn’t—who cares if you like it? Even in the case of moral anti-realism, their concepts of good are themselves objective (albeit they refer to something non-objective).

I would start with: which good - personal or social?
Social good is whatever contributes to the well-being of the community.

This seems to put the OP in a box that isn’t needed though: why start with personal and social goods? Why not start with what it would mean for something to be good in the first place?

Personal good is whatever contributes the individual's continued survival, welfare and happiness.

So it is good, then, for me to kill an innocent person to ensure my survival? That would be a “personal good”?

So it is good, then, for me to avoid my duties to my children because it makes me happier?

Social good is whatever contributes to the well-being of the community.

So it is good for society, then, to torture one person in order to ensure its own survival?

These definitions don’t accurately reflect what either an individual nor social good would be.

Having a good heart is having a heart filled with opportunity to create things that benefit you. You would have purpose, you would have opportunities to create a beneficent circumstance. — Barkon

That doesn't sound like 'good' that sounds more like narcissism. If everything revolves around you and 'opportunities' and what 'benefits you', where does the good come in?

Good doesn’t have a definition, but if you think you can build your own set of rules, you must already have an idea of what good will be.

This sounds like a Moorean intuition of goodness, am I right? (:

Begin at looking what brings happiness.

Why would they do that? They need to first understanding what it means for something to be good, then explore what is good. You are having them skip vital steps here.

(PS: the Nichomachean and Eudemian Ethics are good reads indeed: no disagreement there).

Good is whatever is conducive to the arrow's path toward your vision. Evil is whatever makes the arrow deviate down some other path

That's just another way of saying there is no actual goodness and badness; because you defined it as whatever suits a person's own non-objective dispositions. My biggest complaint is not that you are siding with moral anti-realism, but that the OP wants to know where to start and this makes them think, if they accepted it, that they should collapse ethics into pyschology. They need to explore, first, what goodness even is: not go on a psychological quest.

This is also why, as a side note, I call moral anti-realism only ethics insofar as it is its negation.

I define good as that which elicits feelings of contentment within me. That's an extremely broad, and changing concept. That's why it works (for me).

I can't see a way to 'defining' good as anything other than a personal subjective concept. OR some teleological thing - i.e, "Good in order to achieve..." or "good in order to avoid.." in whatever scenario.

I call moral anti-realism only ethics insofar as it is its negation. — Bob Ross

That's an interesting point, but i think is entirely inapt. Moral anti-realism is literally a species of ethical thought as to "what one ought to do". It just doesn't demand a universal answer.

No, they absolutely do not. All ethicists talk fundamentally in terms of what is good, bad, immoral, moral, etc. — Bob Ross

I caught that too. Was going to edit to reflect what I meant at the time: "The large majority of philosophers produce non-religious works and, in my opinion, 'evil' is a categorically religious construct better (and often) substituted (or otherwise equated) with more pragmatic and secular wording such as 'inhumane' or 'unethical'." You are correct. Honestly thought this thread would've been moved to the Lounge by now. Apologies. :smile:

What you described here is pyschology, not ethics. What one likes doesn’t matter when one is trying to decipher what the concept of good is: either there such a think as ‘being good’ or there isn’t—who cares if you like it? Even in the case of moral anti-realism, their concepts of good are themselves objective (albeit they refer to something non-objective). — Bob Ross

This is correct, also. I emboldened the part that highlights what muddles the waters for me when it comes to the subject. Perhaps it may help someone similar. My understanding being: one 'likes' not suffering, suffering is virtually in de facto agreement by everyone to be unethical, ergo, the relationship between human ethics and what the subject of the whole matter's preferences are (what is liked, what is disliked, the fact inflicting suffering is unethical, etc.) is not without noting. It appears my focus is on human-centric ethics or ethics in sole relation to humanity as opposed to a larger "ultimate" Good that would be the same whether humanity exists or not.

hat's just another way of saying there is no actual goodness and badness; because you defined it as whatever suits a person's own non-objective dispositions. — Bob Ross

You could say it's Beyond Good and Evil, yea.

My biggest complaint is not that you are siding with moral anti-realism, but that the OP wants to know where to start — Bob Ross

The OP has a starting place. He or she is an atheist.

Why would they do that? They need to first understanding what it means for something to be good, then explore what is good. You are having them skip vital steps here. — Bob Ross

Good is not an entity itself. Good is a quality. At closest Good could be happiness, but it is not exactly the same.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1

This is if you're interested for an argument and breakdown. In short: Existence. In long? Existences that keep a level of quantitative existence at a set level, or higher. Bad existences would decrease the overall quantitative existence. For example, matter being completely destroyed would be evil. But an atom breaking into electrons, that then interact with other atoms to create something more than an atom alone, is a greater existence and therefore more good.

Taken in human existence, it is about how we exist and interact with others. Do we allow the same existence? Do we allow new interactions, inventions, ideas, and existences? Then we are good. Do we murder, steal, inhibit creativity, destroy with abandon, and only allow a few select existences to flourish? Then we are evil.

But how can we define something inhumane or unethical if we do not have bad/evil establish? — Matias Isoo

This is a good question. We can take it a step further by asking how we would know that we have the correct definition of "good". supose that you are given an answer, say "What is good is what is natural". How would you go about checking to see if this definition is correct?

You might decide that you could go about collecting all the things that are natural, and seeing if they are good. Seems simple enough.

But how are you to decide if they are good or not? Well, if you take the definition to be true, then everything that is natural will by that very fact be good. And this only means that you have no way of checking if "What is good is what is natural" is right or wrong. Take a cup of tea, and if it is natural then it is good, and that's an end to the discussion.

And if you think that it makes sense to ask if "What is good is what is natural", then you must have a way of checking if something is good that is different to checking that it is natural. That is, there must be a difference between checking if something is good and checking if it is natural.

So given the definition "What is good is what is natural", you either must think that there is no way to check that this definition is true, or you must think that being good is something different to being natural.

And this same argument goes for any definition you might offer.

So from this we might conclude that we already know what is good and what is not, even though we may not be able to give an explicit definition.

This is in outline an argument presented by G. E. Moore, in his book Principia Ethica, the central locus of much of ethics. It's a good starting question.

...I decide to build my own set of rules and values... — Matias Isoo

You don't get to do otherwise, since in order to choose amongst the rules and values given by others, you must already have you some set of values. This applies even to those who think they have chosen to follow the will of god...

Hope this helps. Read widely and don't commit yourself to any particular view too readily.