The best definition of good

[Occam]

The best definition of good (as opposed to evil) is good.

I don't mean definition as in what you'd find in a dictionary, obviously the above 'definition' would be rather lacking in such a context. The proper context in which to understand my assertion is that of the person who would become a good (or better) person. There are some who would have you believe that you can become more good by ingesting such concepts as honour, patriotism, or thinking of yourself as a good parent, teacher, etc. as opposed to simply good. I submit that these concepts serve not to clarify goodness but rather to distort it, and while on the surface some decisions may not suffer from this effect below the surface changes are wrought which leave one unable to even view the subject with clarity. I cannot prove this as such, however I shall rapidly establish a pattern that would seem to influence any possible additional definition of good.

If indeed it is one's objective to be good, and one knows what the good is, further clarification is unnecessary. If one doesn't know what the good is, one cannot fairly judge whether or not acting honourably would be more or less good. If one does know what the good is, further muddying the issue can not help, but could possibly harm one's ability to act consistently morally. It will always be good to be good, whereas it will only sometimes be good to be honourable (even if usually).

If indeed it is one's objective to be good, and one knows what the good is, further clarification is unnecessary. If one doesn't know what the good is, one cannot fairly judge whether or not acting patriotically would be more or less good. If one does know what the good is, further muddying the issue can not help, but could possibly harm one's ability to act consistently morally. It will always be good to be good, whereas it will only sometimes be good to be patriotic (even if usually).

I shall assume that the pattern is established - if anyone can think of an exception, please post it. I'd genuinely like to see it, as I do wish to become a good (or better) person.

We use our knowledge to acquire more knowledge. Quick example - there are those who, when asked how a car works might reply 'you turn the key and push on that pedal, and it goes.' Cars do indeed work like that, however this is not very enlightening and such a person is unlikely to correctly diagnose a problem with the car. An experienced mechanic has a very different idea of a car, and can make better use of information such as sounds emitted by the car. He sees the same car, yet sees a very different car. A beginning mechanic must try to make such diagnoses with incomplete information, so will sometimes make correct diagnoses, sometimes incorrect. If he is allowed to make an incorrect one and yet he somehow ends up replacing the faulty part anyway (through his incorrect diagnosis), he will not merely continue to hold a false belief, but will have reinforced this belief. An incorrect idea that is similar to what is correct is more insidious than an obviously incorrect idea, as it's much harder to get rid of. Such a mechanic will go on to absorb even more incorrect information since he views his world through a warped lens, and inevitably his view will become progressively worse as his whole view of cars becomes increasingly warped, built as it is around a falsity.

Of course this seems rather unlikely given the case of a mechanic, as there are real cars which will readily demonstrate to him his incompetence, and the feedback (it starts or it doesn't) is much less ambiguous than feedback received from other humans or a complex political or economic system - such feedback requires a great deal of interpretation, and our knowledge is the interpreter.

Someone who understands this can use false goods such as patriotism to convince those who accept such concepts to do things that are patriotic but not good. (Heil!) Someone who understands this has a much greater immunity to such manipulation. Events such as the holocaust are for the most part perpetrated by those who understand this, and carried out by those who do not.

I would go further. If we are to be good to our planet, we should not think of ourselves as good people. We should think of ourselves as the good (although never to be taken for granted as carelessness can make a good man do evil things) which simply happens to find itself in a human body for the moment. To think 'human' is to add unnecessary information, which information cannot serve to clarify the good, but has potential only to confuse the issue.

[steven lloyd]

good stuff

[5VP]

Coffee with rum, peppermint schnapps and hot chocolate...

[zensiert]

A lot of atheists would subscribe that there is no good or evil in this world, as good and evil are theistic creations. Rather, they would say that there is only empathy, and the absence of it.

Ergo, atheists use Logic and Reason as a tool (which is neither "good" nor "evil", much in the same way a hammer is neither as well), and temper the results with empathy to come to the best solution possible. A lack of empathy can be seen as being "evil" as it does not mitigate any potential harm in the least. While a logical and rational solution can be a very effective one, it can also be a very harmful one without empathy to temper it. Without empathy, potentially harm-inducing solutions are not properly tempered, even though they may be the most effective and efficient ones.

Strangely, this concept is very in-line with many systems described by physics/science: for example, in thermodynamics there really is no thing such as "heat" or "cold", there is only the kinetic properties of atoms/molecules and its absence (although to be accurate, true absence of kinetic motion is impossible to achieve, as it would result in a "temperature" of absolute zero and the "collapse" of any matter at that "temperature" into a soup of its fundamental subatomic particles).

[1nick]

that soup = bose einstien condensate

[wthwyt]

Looks & Tastes Good

[zensiert]

To use the mechanic analogy above, a Mechanic may do the logical thing and deduce (correctly, for the purpose of this Gedankenexperiment) that a specific part may need replacement. As such, since the car is reasonably new, a continuation of this logical and rational train of thought (our "hammer", or tool, as it were) would be to replace the part with a brand-name unit from the vehicle manufacturer itself. Since the car is expected to continue operating for a long time, the replacement part should also need to work for an equally long period of time, and where better to obtain a quality part but straight from the vehicle manufacturer itself?

But here is where empathy comes in. Let's assume that the little old woman who owns the vehicle is not very rich at all. Let's say she is on a fixed income. Well, a stock replacement straight from the vehicle manufacturer, while being the logical and rational choice for replacement, isn't a very good one. Why? Because it costs much more than the generic no-name replacement. Usually several times more. It is not unusual to have a 400%-20,000% markup on parts that are manufacturer-branded. No-name brands, while lower in quality, are often MUCH lower in price. Ergo, empathy would guide the mechanic toward lowering the overall bill for the old lady by using no-name brand parts. Granted, they may not last for the life of the vehicle, but the woman WILL have a much easier time affording the repair.

The use of Empathy, to take the overall situation into account, is the real-world analogy of "good". Failing to apply it, or even actively ignoring it, can probably be the best application of "evil" possible. But even that end of the spectrum is not a very good analogy -- doing the logical, rational and correct thing but failing to use empathy is not yet truly "evil", as it is merely the failure to apply empathy (and could be best described as the "indifferent" or "neutral" middle ground). Rather, it is the intent to avoid logic, reason and the correct way, along with purposely eschewing empathy, that makes an action truly deserving of the "evil" label.

[zensiert]

Looks & Tastes Good

Bring enough of that for everyone to the post-Rapture party, and I'll be your friend for the day.

[zensiert]

that soup = bose einstien condensate

And how many plebs would understand that? Not many. Besides, you forgot the dash between the names. Should be "Bose-Einstein condensate", seeing as Bose and Einstein are the last names of the people who first described it.

[1nick]

Is to help others anonymously, you get more out of it than the recipient ever will.

[1nick]

that soup = bose einstien condensate

And how many plebs would understand that? Not many. Besides, you forgot the dash between the names. Should be "Bose-Einstein condensate", seeing as Bose and Einstein are the last names of the people who first described it.

sorry,I'm always getting crap for spelling,punctuation,lack of upper case letters etc.

[Occam]

Thank you Zensiert for some very pithy contributions to the thread.

You bring up an excellent point - my assertions are only of value given that the desire to be good is a given, and this is not always so. In fact I would not define it quite so simply myself were I to write a book on the topic, however for the purposes of a forum thread 'good' served quite conveniently. And for many it is the 'right' term exactly.

Empathy is definitely useful in determining what the 'good' is, it forms part of the lens many of us use when determining action that will affect others. The idea of constructing a moral lens around the idea of doing the most empathetic thing as opposed to the most good thing seems interesting. Although you seem to touch on that, not sure if you actually propose it or not. Perhaps if you include sympathy and empathy, without sympathy we would fail to treat non-humans with respect - unless we consider the long-term consequences of destroying our planet on future humans with whom we could empathize. But that seems the long way around for a reliable method of decision making.

Strictly speaking I'm not an atheist (for a very quick idea of what I am read the first post from the following link. The 'good' idea presented here is really an adaptation of a concept I have for clear thinking applied to something which it should verify through other means, IMHO. That is, there is indeed logical reason to be... something hard to define that's kinda close to 'good'. To be in harmony with one's surroundings. Not easy to do if you're generally doing things that are detrimental to your surroundings.

But we're no longer defining 'good', we've gone past it. Is there a beyond good and evil thread?

Oh, and not sure where you were going exactly with the generic replacement part - perhaps that judgement forms part of the lens through which we determine our 'good' or 'empathetic' actions? That a good part isn't a always a good part? If the latter, you've confused two uses of 'good' - not even a Rolls Royce replacement part has the desire to be a better replacement part. This is excellence, as opposed to anti-evilness. It was not my intent to discuss excellence. But feel free if you think it applies, certainly the mechanic faces a moral dilemma in which excellence is relevant.

not quite an atheist link below - after the first post it goes way off topic fast.
http://forums.castanet.net/viewtopic.ph ... 1#p1090441

[Tacklewasher]

A lot of atheists would subscribe that there is no good or evil in this world, as good and evil are theistic creations.

What about those atheists who believe in good and evil, but believe they have become defined over time through a form of social evolution and not theistic creations?