The Perfect Good

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by sevenblu, Nov 25, 2005.

  1. sevenblu feeling blu Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    355
    Does the definition of perfection necessarily mean something exclusively good? Would something exclusively good be perfect?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ceriel Nosforit Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    Good and bad are subjective. Perfection prerequisites objectivity.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sevenblu feeling blu Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    355
    Saying that "the Good" is subjective seems like an easy way out. So let me rephrase: If you are looking for "The Good" are you also looking for "Perfection?"
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    What "Good"?

    Define what you mean by this, and then the answer might be easier to find.....
     
  8. devils_reject Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    659
    Yes I think exclusively good is used in its rights here. Exclusively good or what society calls "solidarity" walks above perfection. Usualy when you can't find good or perfection anywhere you look for the right thing that fits all at that particular time. And usually if you look carefuly enough that is all you need, thats perfection.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2005
  9. ellion Magician & Exorcist (93) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,474
    you have the answer to this yourself, when you are looking for "The Good" are you also looking for "Perfection?

    are you looking for us to tell you what you are looking for?
     
  10. Ceriel Nosforit Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    It isn't the easy way out. When talking about 'good', you have to ask "good for whom?", and on that qualifier alone it is subjective.

    Perfection on the other hand is absolute. It's worth is unchanging from every aspect. Therefore it is objective.

    Looking for 'good', I'm usually looking for my own good or the good of my peers. Looking for perfection I'm usually looking for ascension, enlightenment or such. Two completely different ballgames.
     
  11. matter_of_act Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    I don't think the two can be used synonymously. Yes, "good" is subjective, and "perfect", while being also subjective, is more objective. At the same time, "good" usually has two core meanings; either to describe something "not evil", or to grade the quality of something.

    In the former, one might postulate that "perfect" would therefore be the most "non evil", as in a utopian society, for example. However, what *is* utopian still differs completely between people. In the latter, it could be said that "perfect" would be the highest echelon in the hierarchy (i.e. good, better, best/perfect). Even then, best is not necessarily synonymous with perfect.

    So to say that something that is exclusively good is therefore perfect would be incorrect, I feel. Something, to someone, can always be "better" than it already is, however "perfect" it may already be. Water may be exclusively good for us, but it is not necessarily perfect. Cancer research may be exclusively good in terms of its purpose, but since there is no cure, it is not perfect. (Of course, the debate about cancer is a completely different story)

    One man's "perfect" is another man's "good", if you follow my train of thought.

    Just some ideas... everything is pretty much still left to interpretation.
     
  12. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    If you are speaking of the Platonic "Form of Good", then by being the greatest logical expression of a certain attribute - in this case, goodness - then yes, it would be perfect. Anything which would take the logical expression of a specific attribute to its greatest potential limit, would be, by definition, perfect in that regard. Omnipresence, for instance, is surely the perfection of presence.
     
  13. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    You'll have to define 'perfection' and 'good' for the question or an answer to be coherent.
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I feel that perfection is something that we aspire to because we percieve it to be good or better than where we are.

    So perfection would normally suggest that which is good from our individual perspectives.

    I feel that what you are questioning is the association of perfection being good.

    That one would not consider a personal tragedy as being a symptom of perfection but more a symptom of imperfection. Thus the adjective perfect is always aligned with what we deem as "good" or more importantly "best".

    Certainly in a poetic sense there could exist "Perfect evil" but of course this is an appropriate expression for something that deisres evil. But one wonders what would happen if that entity that aspires to perfect evil would fall victim to that same evil. Would it still be considered perfect evil?
     
  15. ellion Magician & Exorcist (93) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,474
    if an entity desired evil it would be safe to say that that entity perceives that evil to be good.
     
  16. JoeTheMan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    62
    The first question that comes to me in discussions of the good is what we are to decide is its opposite: is it evil, or is it bad?

    "perfection would normally suggest that which is good from our individual perspectives." -Quantum Quack

    You're saying meaning is relative to context, which is saying that the good (as an abstraction) is subjective, which means that morality is opinion.

    We strive for the good, but it's just a projection of our currrent self with an imagined potential self with all the 'best' things (in our circumstances and relative self-image) which we aspire to. In this sense, everyone on earth things that they're a good person.

    The problem with this (to me, anyway) is that it doesn't leave us room to say that anyone is wrong for doing anything. I think, on the contrary, there are many ways to be and to do wrong and to do evil. But you'll respond that this is simply my subjective opinion on the good.

    The problem with this (again) is that the appeal to subjectivity is a rejection of the terms of the argument, in the sense that we cannot accomplish anything unless we first establish the legitmacy of the others' standards and values.

    Where to draw the line when our standards differ is already politics, so we've gotten quickly beyond ethics!

    Appealing to subjectivity in this case is much easier than giving an opinion on what the good is.

    Saying it's subjective amounts to saying it's nothing, which is worse than useless--it's nihilism. Moral valuations are created but that doesn't mean they are thereby artificial. It also doesn't mean they're perfect. As Prince James has explained:

    "Anything which would take the logical expression of a specific attribute to its greatest potential limit, would be, by definition, perfect in that regard."
    Taking this idea of perfection alongside the idea that each human has a different idea of what 'good' is leads us to question what a perfect conception of the 'good' might be; since all human creations are flawed, and since we create the good (as well as the bad, the evil as a matter of culture, history and taste) then our conceptions of the 'good' are all flawed.

    Suppose however that there is something which is purely good. I argue that it cannot be a physical object, since all material things are imperfect, or can be twisted by human hands towards malice, cruelty, towards bad ends, towards imperfection.

    What do you think of Kant's assertion that nothing can be called good without qualification except a good will? I.e., that no action unless it is performed with a good will can be considered 'good.'
     
  17. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    JoeTheMan:

    Yes, it would seem that good -has- no logical greatest expression. It is like asking for the greatest expression of "turkey" or "smoke".

    I would agree with this.

    I would assert that Kant is fond of creating meaningless conceptions. Since a good will can only be subjective, and cannot exist without an object, that the notion that a "good will" is the only thing which can be considered good without qualification, is ridiculous. Moreover, this concept shows its impotence due to the fact that an action, even if not propelled by a good will, can produce a good effect.
     
  18. ellion Magician & Exorcist (93) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,474
    a good sword is a good sword. a good bomb is a good bomb. a good car is a good car is a good car. the object is good even if its use results in something destructive (evil)
     
  19. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    729
    The "perfect good" is what Socrates continued to allude to.

    It is the innate directives of a "pure" direct conscience.... which can only be read from an organism free from endogenous toxins (mainly heavy metals)

    Such "good" would ensure perennial life.
     
  20. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    "perfect" - to me, is colloquially used as an the extremely general "without flaw". that usage is logically dubious, as "flaw" is a highly subjective term as has been pointed out in various ways. for the term to have utility, i think of perfection as "flawlessly satisfying a defined/desired function". as such, that which defines its own function must be perfect so long as it doesn't find itself dis-satisfied (like humans can). thus, the universe is perfect, though if your desire for it to function to your ends is not satisfied, you'll probably disagree (which I find irrational, as if this is so, your desires are out of sync with reality - reassessing the desires would seem imperative).
     
  21. JoeTheMan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    62
    OK, I see how individual objects--like swords, bombs and cars--are 'good' when they perform the functions for which they were designed well. But humans didn't create the universe, cannot fathom its ultimate purpose, so how can we say the universe has a function? The only things which have 'functions' are those which are made by and for humans.
    But just because I think we cannot talk about the universe as a whole having a function doesn't mean the universe cannot, therefore, be good or bad (depending on your perspective.) So I don't think we need to align the good with proper functioning--perhaps good 'design'?

    PrinceJames:
    "Moreover, this concept [good will] shows its impotence due to the fact that an action, even if not propelled by a good will, can produce a good effect."
    A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes or because of its competence to achieve some intended end; it is good only because of its willing (i.e., it is good in itself.) Even if this will is wholly unable to accomplish its purpose, it would still be good.
    But even Kant admits that there is something strange in this idea of the absolute worth of the will alone, in which no account is taken of any use.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. JoeTheMan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    62
    I think only being which was completely perfect could also be completely good.

    But I think conscious beings cannot be completely good or perfect, because we are flawed and because of free will.
     
  23. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    The perfect assassin, the perfect torturer, the perfect sufferer, the perfect nuke...
     

Share This Page