Defining Goodness

It is oft repeat
on philosophical forums
that one man’s good
is another man’s evil
With all due respect
to moral relativism
I can never abide
such pseudo-intellectualism

I have traveled the world
and visited many a regency
and wherever I have gone
I have found a font
of human decency
of kindness and care
and courage to dare
of love and vision
and intellectual precision

So I say phooey!
to all that hooey.

Is moral relativism something wrong?

It is the invention of dysfunctional egos who balk at the mere idea that there is a common need to be good.
I speak of course, from direct, first-hand, personal rebellious experience and endless hours of burning shame.

Well said MM.

Of course there’s a common need to be good. ‘Good’ is defined in terms of need - that is, as what should be.

I believe in a certain brand of moral relativism but also of a hierarchy of moral systems. That is to say, all moral systems have a claim on how we should conduct ourselves, but some systems have more of a claim than others. Respect for basic human rights, for example, has way more of a claim than the obligation to respect the Sabath and keep it holy.

The Good is never, never, never based on Utility… ever!

Utilitarianism is the antithesis to the Good.

Well said. Need is childish and belongs only to the child, and must be done with care not to spoil.
Giving is adult.
THAT is moral relativism!

there are two kinds of evil men, one that does evil and one that does not. there are no other kinds of people/beings.

Pure semantics. One can say exactly the same thing by substituting, Good. One view is negative, the other positive. The choice is free.

I shifted your red emphasis over to what you seemed to have overlooked.

I’m not defining ‘need’ in utilitarian terms; I’m defining it, more or less, in terms of ‘good’ itself. For example, a child hits another child. His mother tells him “Billy, you need to apologize to Timmy”.

I figured that gib, but I couldn’t be certain.

I agree; and you point out that this ‘need’ is forced.

I just meant to say that it is not based on Utility, at all.

dear magnet,

About .0001% of the population is good at poetry. You are not one of those.

-anthem

Ouch ( :frowning: ), was that a little touch of “goodness” Anthem?

Hitlers good was to rid the world of the jews, but is that not evil to others?

it is not, unless we consider evil as non existent, then the debate on defining goodness is over!

ok let us do that: :slight_smile:

“there are two kinds of ‘good’ men, one that does ‘good’ and one that does not. there are no other kinds of people/beings”.

is a man that does no good, good?

That is not necessarily-true if the existence of Goodness is not predicated by evil…

then there would only be goodness? …or neither!

I don’t know, and what do you mean by “neither”?

two sides of a coin, if you don’t have one you don’t have the other, its all comparative. after all they are just vague terms ~ good and evil. nature doesn’t understand what they mean, it just is what it is and acts how it acts. e.g. an act of un-wedded fornication may be seen as evil by some humans, but never by nature etc etc…

Nature is mainly good. There are distortions of goodness, but mercifully very little. Perhaps 4%. But then that is off set by the super-Good. Perhaps another 4% :smiley: