how would you know that.
A person’s “good” can only be defined in relation to their goal. For example, I live in New York. If I decide to go to Montreal Canada, it is “good” for me to go north. It’s not that the direction north is good but rather it is good in relation to my goal.
In nature one goal is survival. If a hawk swoops down and catches a healthy rabbit, it is good for the hawk and bad for the rabbit in the context of survival.
You have defined the good as is nature, and also the relation of a person’s or an animal’s goal.
But what about just good itself? What makes the good in relation to itself good?
I’m defining good from the human perspective which is all we can know. From the biblical perspective and beyond our comprehension consider these two biblical excerpts.
If Jesus isn’t the good, what is?
Now from the Father’s perspective in Genesis 1:
The initial good is pure conscious awareness that enabled the relative levels of existence that we call Creation.
For everything else, good can only be defined subjectively in relation to our goal since the objective good as a whole is Creation.
you said jesus.
What makes jesus good?
I would say his teachings and works.
Then I would ask, what makes his teachings or works good?
Dan, you, misunderstood. I didn’t say Jesus was good but instead that he did not claim to be good.
Committing acts of goodness according to the morality handed down through either the Bible, the Koran, the Veda, the Canon and so on and so forth.
Before these? Well… apparently there was religion since the begining of known history in Cimmeria and I believe their acts of ‘goodness’ then, such as sacrificing human life to the gods would have been seen as a ‘good’ thing because that would have been morality their religion bestowed upon them.
I don’t know anything. Perhaps goodness comes from inside of us. Perhaps it comes from how we were raised, or perhaps it comes from how we were taught or how we taught ourselves.
Its just that the various religious bibles out there are a very high source of the attributing and glorifying acts of kindness, love and respect to ‘goodness’ and that [I believe], because of this, those acts are seen as good. The various bibles out there hold a high influence upon a significant number of people to support each’s similar view of ‘goodness’.
For instance; I think its the Hindu’s practice, in which it is considered a ‘good’ act to drink the urine of sacred cows - because that is the morality which the Veda has taught them, and those who practice it are gloryfied as being ‘good’ because of it.
Read The Republic.
“What makes the good, good?”
That it is proportioned to our natural or supernatural end.
(Whether our final or intermediate end.)
Aquinas also said something is good because it has being, perfection, or practicality. (Goodness being “being” under the aspect of the desirable.)
Being a Scholastic dittohead again…
mrn
I have read the republic twice to almost three times, yet, I cannot find the answers in there to be most satisfying.
If the bible or religion is good, then what makes religion good?
Why do they believe in it. Is it because someone told them it is good and persuaded them, like a sheep follows a sheep, if the sheep falls the mountain the sheeps follows him as well and the others. Or is it the ideas and theories that makes religion good, which has no scientific significance but only words that sounds good to our ears.
It is obvious you meant he is a good person. Then as I ask the question earlier then, what makes this good person , good? His way of living right.
Then what makes his way of living good, life right. Then what makes his life good, if his way of living is a suffering life?
I like the answer of this, and gives me the thought that something that we will claim to be good is the end of something.
My perspective is that it is the same question as “What is light” and how do you know?
Easily, these are constructs of the fragmentary perception capabilities of human physical observation in relation to intrinsic/extrinisic value systems.
In the natural world, there is no division of “good” or “evil”, they aren’t necessary. There is existence, nothing more.
Once one inserts the socio-religious state of morality, then the paradox is created, and further pushes the great disparities of human kind.
Hence one could conclude that “good” is equally as detrimental as “evil”, and no good will ever come of it.
Then what makes light, light?
The very same thing that makes darkness dark. IF you are asking questions in a philosophical manner, that creates logical conundrums based upon the personal perception of individuals.
If you are asking from the religious aspect, that is dependent upon an extrinsic value system created by the doctrines of the particular religion. Good, means god, light means god. Darkness means absence of god, evil means absence of god.
So which are you asking for dan, the philosophical or the religious?
edited
Is good philosophical or religious? I do not know, therefore, I ask.
You substituted my question now now is philocophical or religious good? Or is good philosophical or religious?
If you response in the way that the good is philosophical then what makes it philosophical, if you claim that the good is religious what makes it religous then?I want to know what makes somthing good? I do not want to know what is good or not good.
Ah, well then, that is far simpler my friend, although the answers may be less appealing, and quite honestly, have already been given to you.
“Good” is a definition of personal perception of individual humans based upon intrinsic values, and extrinsic value systems. created by the previously enumerated in former posts.
If you are requiring an absolute “good”, that will never be found.
Then good that you claim is inherent or built in. However, people have differences of what good is.
Like I wish to decieve and lie to court , it may be wrong but it is my good if I wish to live or win big money. Therefore immoral deeds will be good for them. Then there will be others in court saying I want to tell the truth and not to decieve, that is my good, however the outcome may not be satisfying and yet convicted guilty. Moral deeds will be good for him no matter what the consequences.
Now how can you claim good is intrinsic or is already known or builtin or a system, when clearly there are differences. As more experiences we gain by following our definition of what good is , the knowledge of what is good changes unless he has made a solemn vow that this good he is following he will not change it.
Can you give me an example of what is good that is with certainly it cannot be doubted to be not good. Other then good itself.
edited
No sir, I made two contentions, good is partially intrinsic, (built in), and good is partially extrinsic value system, (parental values, religious values, social values…all learned).
My second contention was that if you are asking for an absolute “good”, as in a “good” that is unfalsifiable, such a definition or example does not exist. Unless one has an irrefutable belief in divinity, and believes that is where all “good” emanates forth.
edited