When (and how) something (or someone) is "good."

[b]Many serious students of Ethics and Morality have wondered: When (and how) is something (or someone) “good”?

We call a situation good if it fulfills a purpose. We call a thing good if it exemplifies (the meaning of) its concept. [The assumption here is that each item falls under a concept. This is reasonable to assume.]

“Good” in general is too vague. If I just utter the word “good” without being specific, then “good” could mean anything - it could be a thoughtless expression, an emotional attitude, an assent, equivalent to “yes.”

When”good” is applied to an individual, who plays a role, such, for example, janitor, clerk, parent, postman, tailor, waitress, etc., then a good one is one who does his/her duty, one who fulfills the requirements of the job.

A “good action” is an action that (Systemically) proceeds from sound reasons; (Extrinsically) has outcomes that meet with approval and gets something worthwhile done; (Intrinsically) shows respect for others and reflects living out one’s principled beliefs on the part of the one performing the action. It it meets those three criteria, we are justified in speaking of it as “a good action.”

Here I shall quote a passage from my booklet, A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS, pp. 19-21.

What makes anything ‘good’? Take a car, for example. You have a picture in your mind as to what features a car could have; and if this car has all those qualities- you’d likely call it a good one. So a ‘good car’ has everything a car is supposed to have. Of course, everyone might have a different picture with different qualities in mind, but the basic idea is that what makes anything good is for it to be ‘all there’ under the name you put on it.

Now that we know what the word “good” means, we can ask the question about what makes a good person. {I am well aware that persons are not cars, and that different criteria apply. Cars are extrinsic values, while persons are intrinsic values – in Robert S. Hartman’s sense (not Moore’s, nor Dewey’s.)

Who is a good person? Well, it would be someone who is ‘all there.’ A good person would have all the attributes that a person ought to have. That person, it is fair to say, would have moral value, would avoid selfishness. Let’s describe such a person and see if you would call such an individual ‘good.’

That person is one who educates himself, or herself, to do what is truly in his self-interest and who is able to see that “selfishness” is something distinctly different than “self-interest.” Allow me to explain. Wisdom is knowing others and enlightenment is knowing yourself [The point to notice is that ethics is not just ‘a matter of opinion,’ and ‘totally subjective,’ as some would try to tell you. It can be objective (inter-subjectively verifiable) and universal.][/b]

[b]As Dr. Stephen Pinker - in an article entitled “The New Science of Moral Sense” - says, “In many areas of life two parties are objectively better off if they both act in a non-selfish way than if each of them acts selfishly. You and I are both better off if we share our surpluses, rescue each other’s children in danger, and refrain from shooting at each other, compared with hoarding our surpluses while they rot, letting the other’s child drown while we file our nails, or feuding like the Hatfields and McCoys.”

“Granted, I might be a bit better off if I acted selfishly at your expense and you played the sucker, but the same is true for you with me, so if each of us tried for these advantages, we’d both end up worse off. Any neutral observer, and you and I if we could talk it over rationally, would have to conclude that the state we should aim for is the one in which we both are unselfish.”[/b]

[b]It’s in the nature of things that if we educate ourselves enough we come to develop this insight about our true self-interest. We reach this understanding.

We learn, in that essay, that if your beliefs are evolving in a more compassionate, more empathic, more inclusive direction, to that degree you are moral. Your views regarding how to enhance the group(s) to which you belong, as well as how to conduct yourself when you think no one is watching; or, say, how you would behave if you were invisible, Those views comprise what the theory refers to as your ‘self-ideals. When such ideals match your actual behavior, you conduct, you are moral, and if they fully match, you are authentic, a real person (in contrast with a phony.)
[/b]

Comments? Questions? Suggestions?

That’s correct, unless running properly and for a reasonable period of time is one of those qualities. In my view, a “Good,” car should serve the primary function of reliably transporting a person from Point A to Point B, and serve that function for an extend time, specifically, at least 120,000 miles. In this sense, the, “Picture,” that I have of such a car does not serve, in and of itself, for me to make a judgment as to whether or not I consider the car good.

Certainly, features of the car would also contribute to whether or not I think the car is good. Therefore, I could picture a car that I think will be good, except the only thing I don’t know about is whether or not it goes 120,000 miles without significant problems. We forge relationships, generally, with people who we think are, “Good,” though relationships can be forged for other purposes, but we simply don’t know people well-enough to make an actual judgment as to their, “Goodness,” right away. Sometimes, we can never really be sure of how good a person is.

You had mentioned whether or not a person has done a good job at something. The advantage we have there in making such a determination is that we usually have a more objective set of criteria we are using to make that decision, and it is simply a matter of whether or not the person is satisfactorily meeting said criteria. When the car goes for 120,000 miles without any significant problems, then I will know that I have/had a good vehicle. Again, though, 120,000 miles is a very objective measurement, though, “Significant problems,” is more subjective, but even, “Significant problems,” is internally objective in that I know what does or does not constitute a, “Significant problem,” in my view. My final decision about the car, therefore, is objective, but the objective measures that I am using are still based on my own subjective criteria. Maybe Person X doesn’t think a car is any good unless it goes 200,000 miles without needing a new engine, but mine needs a new engine after 170,000, so I scrap it very content in my belief that I had a good car. Person X thinks my car sucked.

Again, what Person X considers, “Moral Value,” or acting in a manner to, “Avoid selfishness,” might differ from what I consider those things to be. Person X may well look at something as a selfish act while I would maintain that the person may have acted in his own self-interest, but not to the extent that the act is actually selfish.

Furthermore, we are still confronted with the problem that we have limited knowledge of most people, and most of that (already limited) knowledge only comes in a certain context. Perhaps I think that someone is a good friend, but I would think he sucks as a co-worker…but, I’ve never worked with him, so I simply don’t know. Perhaps, if this good friend and I had met in an office-type setting, I’d have felt cause never to become friends with him to begin with. Further, perhaps if this good friend and I were to ever work together in the future, our friendship would dissolve because I would consider him to be an abyssmal co-worker, which would certainly impact my opinion of him on the whole.

I can agree that the goodness of a person can be inter-subjectively verifiable, to the extent that a person is considered good within the knowledge sets and pursuant to the standards of multiple people such that said multiple people agree that the subject is a good person, but I disagree with any notion of Universality. It’s going to take more than a declarative statment to get me to buy into any Universality of goodness, you’d actually have to at least give me an example of such, a person who is so objectively morally good that none could find fault with that person. Even if there were a person who found such fault in a subject, and every other person who knew the subject would vehemently disagree with that person’s assertion, the person has still fallen short of being considered universally good.

I believe that article was entitled, “The Moral Instinct,” should anyone wish to read it. I could be wrong though. I would tend to disagree with the assertion that such evolution would constitute any kind of Universal Morality, because whether or not those objectives are actually being met is still a subjective determination. In fact, I believe that all you have underlined above accomplishes is to serve as a guideline for whether or not an individual can consider himself/herself moral, and the determination is even more subjective, at that, as compared to setting goals that are actually objective and quantifiable for behavior and seeing if those goals are met. None of this has any bearing on whether or not others will consider the subject to be a moral person, nor does it even come anywhere close to satisfying ay kind of, “Universal Morality.” The subject is simply judging itself against the subject’s own standards of becoming, “More compassionate, more empathic (and) more inclusive,” it is possible that others will consider that the subject is more moral and therefore a, “Good,” person, but then others might just consider the subject a phony. I’ve probably thought any number of good people were phonies when they would be (by my definition) actually good people, I’ve probably also thought that some people were phonies and it turned out that they would be (by my definition) sanctimonious phonies.

Pinker’s article? I don’t know. Great material for a self-help book, but that’s probably the extent of it. Nice, “Feel-good,” article, anyway.

Hartman’s ‘Axiom of Value’, which defines “x is a good C” employs variables. This allows for all the variability that PavlovianModel raises in his comments. We simply need plug in differing distinct constants for a variable to arrive at the various cases he mentions.

And if one reads carefully, one notes that I allowed for most of his objections applied to things and categories when - at the end of the paragraph that brought up the car example - I wrote:

“Of course, everyone might have a different picture with different qualities in mind, but the basic idea is that what makes anything good is for it to be ‘all there’ under the name you put on it.”

Hartman was fond of saying “The name sets the norm.” The words you employ - the ‘name’ of the concept in question - and the associated meaning(s) - are the measure of the value you explicitly or implicitly assign to the specific item or situation you are talking about. {The more meaning, the more valuable.}

Now, as to the ‘good person’ discussion… It is obvious, Pavlovian, that you did not read any of the selections linked to in the signature, for there you would have found a more-detailed exploration of what “morality” means in my model, thus obviating much of the critique you offered. I do appreciate that you took the time to share with us your observations, and good suggestions.

And I would argue that there is nothing wrong with “self-help” …which, if I’m not mistaken, Pavlovian seems to disparage. To me this process is part of one’s ethical maturation, as one goes through life cycles and gains wisdom and enlightenment. Hartman outlined the process, by listing four imperatives (the first of which he got from Socrates report of what the Oracle at Delphi told him; the second he learned from Soren Kierkegaard’s EITHER-OR concise essay; the third is emphasized by the Existentialists through the ages; and the fourth from a clue offered by Dr. Carl Rogers, a renowned psychotherapist.)

The imperatives are: KNOW YOURSELF Choose Yourself [by which is meant: Accept yourself - warts and all] Create Yourself … and finally, if you have developed through the earlier stages, Give Yourself (meaning Take on responsibility, express your inner artistry, let the world share in it. If you now are excellent at some skill, use it for world-betterment, ‘perform your art’ in public - so to speak.) Dr. Rogers found that as his neurotic patients got well, they reached a stage where they asked to take on some responsibility, do some worthwhile service, or project. Then he knew they were - or were close to being - fully recovered.

As to the universality of ethical principles, research over many times and climes by The Institute for Global Ethics discovered that people in diverse cultures around the globe agreed on a cluster of four values - when they were asked: What does “ethics” mean to you? Those values are Honesty, Fairness (Justice), Respect, and Responsibility.

They replicated this experiment so often and in so many places, and found the results to recur so regularly that they incorporated these values in their Statement of Purpose …which you can find with a search tool on the Web.

Right, perfectly fine, but what if we have drastically differing qualities in mind?

This, “Basic idea,” as you put it seems to amount to, “Anything is good if an individual thinks it is good, and that’s true for all individuals, and therefore, a Universal.” I guess I would say that I largely agree with that, people think things are good if they think they are good. Does that mean that there is any one quality that an individual can point to as a, “Universal Good?” I doubt it. Even if that were the case, however, it would still require that all people recognize that quality in a given subject.

For starters, I corrected you on the name of that article, so I would consider it obvious that I read at least one of the selections cited in your post. If you’re referring to your book, no, I did not read your book. I assume that your book (or even the cited pages) are longer than your post, and I really don’t see the need for reading something longer than your post as a prerequisite for reading/responding to your post which specifically asked for comments, thoughts, suggestions…

However, if those selections actually obviate much of my critique, then certainly (my critique being less verbiose than those selections) you should be able to offer concise statements that would obviate much of my critique by explaining, concisely, what morality means in your model.

I was referring to Dr. Pinker’s article, and I am not disparaging self-help. I think self-help is good, and I actually find it very useful to help myself, at times. The point is that I think Dr. Pinker’s article was more useful for helping a person to determine how to, “Be a good person,” according to that person’s own standards rather than making a solid argument that there is a Universal Good(s) or morality.

Again, this is clearly an example of the, “Self-help,” type of language that I earlier referenced. I’m not saying that this is not useful, I’m just saying that it doesn’t prove or demonstrate anything about Universal Goods or Morality.

Right, but what are these things, and do they have exceptions? The easiest to counter as some sort of Universal sentiment is Honesty, clearly with the example of a, “White Lie,” to spare someone’s feelings. We both know what a White Lie is, so I don’t feel the need to give a specific example. Suffice it to say that there are some people who consider it, “Better,” to always be 100% honest, even if it means not sparing the feelings of another, while there are those people who elevate sparing feelings over unbridled honesty.

With Fairness, (Justice) you simply have situational questions of what is Fair or Just. The death penalty is a good example. I don’t dispute that most, if not all, people would suggest that things are Good when the situation is Fair, but we differ on what is or is not a fair situation.

Respect is another one where you have questions such as: What is respect? Does everyone deserve respect?

Responsibility is essentially the same as action. Acting responsibly can be reduced to nothing more than doing what one considers morally right, but then we find ourselves in the same situation of asking: what is morally right?

The problem is that these are just words, and taken by themselves, most people can agree that these words represent good traits, qualities and situations. The problem is that we each define these words in different ways, and even in cases that more than one person defines the word the same way, one person may think that a subject fits that definition while the other disagrees.

I’m not really a fan of that education premise. It treats people as guilty before proven innocent as if newborns are obligated to go out into the world and find things out despise not consenting to join it.

That’s pretty much Stockholm Syndrome. :-/

The matters of compassion and empathy are emotional, not thoughtful, as well. Only those who were naturally endowed with feeling appropriately would be qualified as “good”. You’re pretty much endorsing fate as if “goodness” is supported by external locus of control.

That’s like calling a cloud blue because it’s surrounded by the sky.

Sounds like consequentialism. At least if we are looking at the good in that realm.

What is a good guard at a concentration camp? What duty? Duty can lead to, well, all sorts of outcomes?

So consequentialist evaluations.

Even if our principles are not the same as the person performing the action?

I find it interesting that the first move from a very abstract level - where we are looking at coherence - the person actions match their values - to a specific is around selfishness. I realize you have not made a binary set up yet, just me reacting to the text as it comes at me. But here it is almost as if selfishness and goodness are the polarities. It seems to me one can selflessly perform evil acts - in any definition of evil I can Think of.

I don’t know if this was meant to be a summation of a good person, but it seems to me Hilter could be described as this and so could mother Theresa, though both might deny, or at least, the latter might, that she is (also) acting in her own self-interest. (was that is)

Though if Joe Hatfield is shooting at your dad, Jim Mccoy and you run and hide in the bushes you did not feud, but you might have been rather selfish. Especially if the feud started last week cause some of the Hatfields raped your sister and they are paying off the sheriff to not look into it.

I Think it is problematic to Word it in terms of selfishness and selfishness and even self-interest though this term seems less problematic to me.

Further with some people it is a very good idea to be on guard and focus on one’s own needs. With other’s it is a good idea to see if something like friendship and what naturally flows from this are a good idea.

I find that having the abstract prioritization of presuming trust is best is not the best heuristic. From a game theory standpoint. But on the ground in Life, I find that I do not work that way and this is good. IN fact I had to unlearn default trust.

Well, a battered woman may need to go in the other direction.

You might be an honest Hitler or CEO psychopath. Or, if your couple this not being a hypocrit with compassion, you might end up being someone who harms a lot of people, for their own good. Or for the good of society as a whole.

There is an assumption in your approach, one that most moral systems have. One should be good and to be good one should evaluate oneself from the outside. What behavior should I have? What logically leads to the best outcomes? What would give me good character?

IOW it is not starting from what one desires to do and express, it is looking objectively at oneself and deciding regardless. It is intended to find out a moral system objectively, then to live up to it. RAther than moving outward from who you are and what you desrie to do in the World.

For me this means there will Always be a split. The person you Think you should be that the mind, or really one part of it, evaluates the rest of the organism in terms of. You compare yourself with this ideal and strive the ideal, because that small portion of the self has decided on that ideal. When one does this one must become, to some degree a jailer and master of the other parts of the self.