Is it possible to define good and bad, and should we even try?

i'm not suggesting that it's a matter of opinion. i'm actually suggesting that it's beyond anyone's opinion.

me too. law, even within our genetic code.

for as much as we know about the universe, i wouldn't jump to any conclusions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree.

If we, for example, compare "coal" and "apple" in the context of "food for humans", coal is bad and apple is good.
If we compare "apple" and "apple pie", either can be bad or good, depending on whether the context is "more nutritious", "a good choice of snack" or whatever else may seem feasible.
There are contexts in which an apple pie seems better than an apple, and vice versa.

"Good" and "bad" (or in degrees of "good", "better", "best"; "bad", "worse", "worst") are comparison tools/methods for our cognition.
Without them, we could not choose.
Without them, we could not decide whether to eat coals or apples, for example.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It depends on what the communication is about and what the parties involved wish to accomplish with it.

It seems to me that your underlying intention for the OP is that ideally, communication should be objective, as if the individual persons involved in it are to be eliminated from it - as if the ideas themselves are somehow supposed to make sense between eachother.

Something like mixing ingredients in a chemistry experiments, while we are merely experimenters, watching the chemical reactions.

I think human communication is more than that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would argue that no human society would ever consider murder (unjustified killing) to be an acceptable practice. Recent studies have shown that much of our basic morality is not learned but hard wired at a very basic level, what one researcher called "our inner chimp".

An example of this is the old ethics problem involving a train. You are standing beside a train track and see that a train is coming and, if it continues on the track, it will kill five men who are working on the track. You call out to the men, but they can't hear you (perhaps they're wearing ear protection).

You notice that there is a lever that you can pull which will cause the train to switch to a different track and thereby avoid killing the five guys. However, the alternative track does have one guy working on it who also seems oblivious to the oncoming train or your efforts to warn him.

So, do you do nothing and allow 5 men to die; or do you pull the lever and condemn one man to death?

Most people pull the lever figuring it's one life versus five.

But, on the other hand, if the question is posed such that instead of standing beside the track you are now on a bridge overlooking the track and can't reach the lever but, there's a big fat guy who you could push off the bridge onto the track thus stopping the train and saving the five guys.....

Most people say no. I would not push the guy off the bridge.

Now you can argue about the differences between the two scenarios, but the interesting thing is that they've asked these questions to people in MRI machines to determine what parts of the brain is used to make such decisions.

When deciding whether or not to pull the lever, we use the prefrontal cortex. It's a question of pure logic. But when we consider pushing a guy off the bridge; a more primitive part of the brain lights up and screams, "Hell no!" "YOU WILL NOT PUSH ANYONE OFF OF ANY BRIDGES!!!!"

http://reason.com/archives/2006/01/27/morality-on-the-brain​

So you see, there is a right and wrong for humans. It is hardwired into our brains. We have free will and can choose to ignore it, but most people instinctively know the basics of right and wrong. Indeed, our basic moral instincts are not even exclusive to humans, but are shared with other primates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html

 

Life perpetuates death.
With no life there is no death.
Ergo life is bad.

Way to go, Lori!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

To chuck my twopenneth into the mix, and possibly rehash what others might have already said:

In my opinion "good" and "bad" are entirely subjective assessments of how an action (or inaction) impacts one's sphere of influence, weighed according to the subjective values that one places on each influencing factor. (I actually see Trooper has stated this same thing much more succinctly).

Therefore one person's "good" might be another person's "bad"... and there is, as others have said, no objective "good" or "bad" - just shared subjective judgements.

But that's just my view of it all.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

these types of relativism when discussing ethics (which is not just about oneself) tends to justify or obfuscate anyone's intent or actions toward another as being neither good nor bad even if one is aware that it is harmful to another or it may even be intentional.

this is in the ethics subforum and it's not up to question whether what one perceives as good for themself but rather how it affects others besides oneself.

for instance, i've never heard anyone say or relate in any way that thier possible murder was in any way a good thing so i don't think everything is subjective and not apply to others, even if a lot of things are.

i've never heard anyone relate that a thief breaking into thier home to rob or harm their family was in any way a good thing and is entirely subjective and not apply to others. it seems everyone shares a basic concept of or desire for self-preservation.

if anyone does think that this (that they are robbed or murdered, for instance) is subjective which is a bad thing for you but possibly considered a good thing if it happened to another from thier perspective or vice versa, please correct me and let me know. first, starting with yourself as an example. lol

 

thank you, and you're right. in the lives we experience now, death is inevitable, and that is because there is bad inherent and manifest in our lives.

and it is true that duality exists, so that you can not have life without the possibility of death, or good without the possibility of bad. this duality is what delineates the two. and if you can delineate the two, there is no reason why you can't realize one, while the other remains a mere possibility.

 

Your entire post is an absolutely perfect description of the issue I pose, and in doing so you perfectly highlight the problem as I see it. Our society too often uses terms like good and bad without establishing a goal into which the words are given context, often because the person using the word knows that to place it into context is to lose the attention of the listener. In regards to our American society, you also raise an interesting question - which is to be considered a "better" goal? Individuality or the Species?

I don't mean to be inflammatory, but I don't know if I've seen anyone skirt an issue as much as you have. Every one of your examples is CLEARLY operating within the context of an assumed goal, to use Tiassa's excellent point. I can toss out a situation for each of your so-called 'givens' that further serves my point, that the words good and bad carry with them an implied agreed-upon goal, and human diversity being what it is - no such thing exists.

By what rationale would you suggest that that which perpetuates life is "good"? What kind of life? Or does that matter? The death of any human gives rise to billions of other life forms (in our decay). Of course, we kill billions of bacteria every time we take medication for a cold or fever. The nature of the universe is such that life and death are actually kind of inconsequential - why do you place so much importance on life?

Signal, you are getting closer to the point than Birch, but you are still using examples that can be traced to SOME assumption. I think the words good and bad can ONLY be used in conjunction with a stated goal, and they rarely are.

Yes! That is EXACTLY what I think. Why do you think "human communication is more than that"?

 

it's a conditioned christian response. conditioned because, i don't have a practical understanding of how an eternal biological life form is made. but the doctrine is all about eternal life. "on earth as it is in heaven".

a particular quality of life is inherent in making it eternal, because sin causes death, and the abolition of sin brings forth eternal life, and communion with god. so, inherently, i'm suggesting a life without fear, lies, shame, suffering, sickness, greed, hate, and so on. a life of absolute freedom, truth, love, and communion.

the importance i place on life comes from my belief in god. i could value the lives of others as much as i do my own, but that wouldn't fare well for others if i didn't value my own. i don't get the impression that god does anything in futility, and i think there's a reason for everything, including creation, and including the christ.

 

So you are saying they are 'bad' and thus it is 'good' to avoid them.

And you are saying this, dare I mention it, in words.

 

Is it that we go into 'fight or flight' mode at the prospect of physical conflict, and flight is naturally more preferable to us than fight.

It is (apparently) easier to kill someone with a gun, as we are remote from the violence to some degree, but far harder to do it with a knife or bare hands.

 

Individual and society

Just to reinforce the point—in large part because it amuses me to do so—the Portland example I used actually comes from Jeffrey Burton Russell, an historian and theologian whose primary claim to recognition is a series of books detailing the evolution of the concept of the Devil. For Dr. Russell, who teaches at the University of California at Santa Barbara, north would be the direction he would travel in order to make progress toward Portland, the antithesis of how I would travel to reach the same destination.

As to the question of individual and species, I would suggest that the issue isn't so diametric. That is, in the end, species wins out, as I see it, but the real question has more to do with the relationship between individual and species, or, as the world is carved up into various nations, individual and society.

Thus, to take a complex issue, the abortion debate. To the one, it is easy enough to say, "Species? But we're killing a vast swath of the future generation in the womb!" Or we might say, "Perpetuation? How does the increased crime and disorder that comes with increased poverty help the species?" At some point, though, most people give over to some sort of subjective sentiment. Late-term partial-birth abortion, also known as dilation and extraction, for instance. The argument against is primarily sentimental, and persuasively so. The argument in favor, while it has much sentiment about it—e.g., rights—also depends on the reasons by which one might justify abortion in the first place. How do we balance the demands of individual and society? If we determine the relevant individual is the mother, we favor her rights. If we determine the relevant individual is the fetus to be extracted, it's a much more complicated consideration. And part of the problem with that consideration is that nobody is clairvoyant. That is, we cannot predict with any respectable degree of accuracy what any individual will equal in society. However, statistically according to economics, education, and crime, or even according to psychology, unwanted children tend to suffer, and if that suffering was entirely contained to them as individuals, that would be as far as it goes. But the produce of neglect, of insufficient education, and of poverty—of protracted suffering in general—contributes greatly to the challenges a society faces.

Determining the standing of individuals and society in such a question is certainly not an easy task.

 

I'm not skirting any issue. It's just that for you to make some obvious or technical point that there has to be a goal to define good or bad is so obvious to be pointless. do you really think i don't understand the context of the bleach example? it's considered bad (to you) when your goal is to stay alive if another inflicted this on you whereas it may be considered good to the perpetrator if that is their intent but that has nothing to do with ethics. hypothetically, if it was done in the context or out of self-defense it may be apply to ethics but that't it. Ironicly, it's you who are misappropriating or obfuscating the meaning of ethics or morality or justice (with words "good and "bad" out of context or without context which often have nothing to do with ethics) which at it's root is about respecting the sanctity of life or the right to one's self-determination within reason and limits in a society depending on effects. just as if i label strawberry ice cream as tasting good to me has nothing to do with ethics or morality-at all. if my goal is to run up a hill and i succeed and i call the results 'good', it has nothing to do with ethics. just as this thread is in the ethics or morality subforum yet you pretend as if you have no understanding of what ethics or morality is based on.

it's also hard to take someone seriously as yourself which i am 100 percent and emphatically certain acts with the same motivation just like everyone else, every single day to ensure your self-preservation. you can wax on forever disassociatively while you preserve yourself every day like everyone else and fool yourself that it's all relative and subjective and nothing is shared or understood. a pretty selfish point of view, actually.

it seems pretty hypocritical. what is your real point? do you not want any labels of good or bad or feel that it's misapplied? it's true that people confuse with what is relative with dogma. why don't you give us some concrete examples instead of keeping it totally nebulous and also misleading by saying everything is totally relative and therefore there is no basis for moral or ethical responsiblity. really that seems to be your real point. look at your thread title, "should we even try?" I'm one-hundred percent certain that if you had a family and someone broke into your home to murder them, you would not be too happy about it or in agreement. the fact you have a problem with the words or labels is another matter. pick a new label then, eh? there are lots of labels or words that are misapplied or used incorrectly. love, for example, is often a misapplied word or misused one but that doesn't negate the existence of love when it happens. you can liken the words 'good and 'bad' as a figure of speech to an event or effect but that doesn't negate what actually took place.

at least i acknowledged that there were subjective but as well as concrete examples of good and bad. i also pointed out context.

you have not made any amazing point either. you are basically saying it all means nothing if you take out human will, feelings, desires, goals, effects etc or base it totally on subjective or selfish point of view.

well, really? that's brilliant. lmao

if i did not care or believe i should be held responsible if someone died since i survived in a car accident even if it was my fault or it was intentional because it made me feel good to ram my car into another, that has nothing to do with ethics. ethics and morality requires context with another or it's environment and an understanding that there are others who we affect.

how i know you are full of it is because my first post is what everyone else is expounding on in one way or another yet you were contrary. my first post was correct and the fact you were contrary and your subsequent posts is because you believe totally in the right of the will of the individual no matter who or how it affects others. your subsequent posts hint at it very strongly. you don't want the labels of good or bad as that is how laws are formed such as rape is bad, murder is bad etc. every single one of your posts hints at an anarchistic, individualistic, no holds barred dog eat dog philosophy.

actually, that would work if it were truly and totally lawless where no one is restrained in any way as anyone could make offenses as well as take defensive or offensive measures in return. but even then, eventually what we understand as ethics would form just as now since everyone is trying to preserve themselves.

so bottomline, you have no point. lmao

are you serious? lol

ethics is not a denial that other lives (such as stepping on bugs or killing animals for food or even killing others) are sacrificed for our own but an acknowledgement that all life is trying to preserve itself so we try as much as possible to lessen suffering or killing or lessen adverse effects to ourselves, others or the environment. this is a constant process.

 

First of all, google "scrupulosity" and read the accounts of what people are like when their sense of good/bad, right/wrong, moral/immoral is relativized like what you suggest above.
Then come back and tell us whether you still think that abolishing those terms is a good idea.

 

So? What's stopping you to state the goal in conjunction with which you use those words?
What's wrong with asking others to state those goals in conjunction with which they use those words?

Well, a simple observation makes clear that there is more to human communication than just the mere words uttered.
The rather obvious factor is the relationship between the communicating parties - what they are to eachother, how well they know eachother, what exchanges they have had so far. An utterance like "You know what I'm talking about" or "I do" or "Go away" will have very different meanings, depending on who makes it, to whom, in what circumstances.
Another fators is free will and the ability to meta-communicate - when we communicate with someone, we can and do check if they have understood us as we wanted to be understood or not.

 

your post makes zero sense.

scrupulosity is total self-absorption and values that are based on dogma which is blinding and is not relativistic at all or does not take into account that some things are relative.

it has nothing to do with general ethics which takes into account how we affect others as well as ourselves in any given situation.

using simple common sense, one's motives or intent is important in assessing thier actions.

anyone with a brain cell realizes this already.

Look how crazy this argument is and totally without context.

So if I had a desire to kill someone, it's okay? it's just an unfolding of cause and effect as each plays it's part, okay? why does this usually not get much cooperation, i wonder?

if i wanted to recreate texas chainsaw massacre in real life, what is the problem if people must get killed? why are they not with the program? the idea is to hack and watch the natural flow of blood and body parts flying as it makes me giddy with awe and delight. why do people have a problem with this form of communication?

is this idiot serious?

 

That is an understanding of scrupulosity that I have never encountered before. Traditionally, it was indeed considered the "Catholic disease", but is now acknowledged as a form of OCD, a pathological inability to decide whether something is moral or not and the resulting dysfunction.

 

I agree that this is what often happens.

While it is natural to try to go with the flow and try to find ways to see that flow as right,
it is also natural to rebel against it and see where, how and why it is faulty.

Welcome to the wonderful and exciting world of philosophy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

obviously because it's based on dogma or ethics based on religious dogma such as hell etc.

this was your response to a totally ridiculous argument.
really? you sound very vague and unsure.

so when people communicate to others as if they are objects and not breathing, thinking, feeling as well as mortal beings, it's usually not okay?? really?? so if i wanted to throw acid in your face to see what would happen or watch the chemical reaction, it's not okay to you? i wonder why that is, it's eluding me for some reason. you know, because it's all going on in the airy world of ideas detached from reality. this is so difficult, let me overthink this to absurdity.

so this whole argument has been one idiotic point that without context, nothing can be defined. even the most imbecilic person out there is aware of that for the most part!!

if i didn't have to breathe oxygen, had wings and was impervious to radiation, i could fly to outer space. alas, none of this is true. if people didn't die, i could just mow them over with a tank. if only people would cooperate.

honestly, most of you are totally stupid.

 

What you wrote is fascinating, but still leaves open a number of questions. fMRI scans show that undergraduates within the same culture have similar physical reactions, so why was murder so much more common in late medieval Europe than it is today, or was in early medieval Europe? Why were Roman (the city's) citizens of the early Roman Empire more prone to murder than Romans of the later Roman Empire? Where did the Nazis come from? And all those men who carried out Stalins orders?

I tend to agree with your position--that brain structures are more important in our moral action (and for my part I think give us less "free will" than we generally imagine we have), and that moral questions are first and foremost automatic and not derived from rational processes. In that regard, I am Humean and see unconscious processes as the driving force behind morality, with reason serving as an adjunct process ("Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions" as Hume wrote)...but to what extent does learned culture influence those moral actions? Surely a typical Nazi would not hesitate to push a fat Jew off the bridge.

It may be as simple as saying that other effects are also hard wired (like a preference for "in-group" individuals and a disdain for foreign "outsiders" which could explain prejudices, some hardwired effect explaining the Milgram Experiment and Standford Prison Experiment, etc.), but I am not sure it is a simple answer.