How much good is good enough?

JLNobody wrote:

To me, a "good" person is one who does what he believes is beneficial for others without any reference to rewards and gods.

By that rationale a person is good if their actions are not based on rewards and/or gods, but are predicated on the belief that said actions are beneficial for others.

You can rationalize murder with that logic, all you would need do is believe that action was beneficial for others.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:

And just which delusions deserve respect? All of them?

Bartikus wrote:

Quote:

Just yours Joe.

Chumly wrote:

Quote:

You can rationalize murder with that logic, all you would need do is believe that action was beneficial for others.

I think both of these points highlight the fact that everyone has different perceptions about what is real and "good" and would be considered delusional or beneficial.
Bartikus has obviously had different experiences than Joe. Joe's experience has led him to believe that if you do good to others, they'll do good back to you to which Barikus responded:

Quote:

If your good enough to other fellow humans...they will be good back? You must live in a real nice place.Fantasy Island perhaps.....

But whose experience or opinion or interpretation of life should be considered the delusional one?
This world is a different place for each individual. Each of us experiences it differently.

I think it's the same with belief or non-belief.

Maybe the most logical thing to do is to judge the efficacy of perception by outcome. Greater degree of "goodness" awarded to whichever outcome impacts positively on the greatest number of participants. But I don't think non-participants should even have a vote, as they have not experienced the "goodness" that the others who have participated in that particular activity feel that they have garnered from it.

And I agree with Snood - you can't blame the outcomes we've endured because of the actions of George Bush and Osama Bin Laden on religion or the seeking of "goodness". Neither one of those two men were motivated by those things - and everyone in the world knows it.

I think the most good to the world would be realized if people felt that they would be allowed to be whoever they are, in peace and from the very beginning- and that that would be "good" enough.
Think about it, that would alleviate envy, jealousy, and the constant jockeying for power, material goods, and outside affirmation that we all compete for in order to fill that hole that's left inside a person who has never felt "good" enough.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

Maybe the most logical thing to do is to judge the efficacy of perception by outcome. Greater degree of "goodness" awarded to whichever outcome impacts positively on the greatest number of participants.

By that numerical sensibility it's OK to kill 100 healthy 10 year old children to save 101 sickly octogenarians. At the risk of repetition: You can rationalize murder with that logic.

moral relativism / moral absolutim

0 Replies

Quote:

By that numerical sensibility it's OK to kill 100 healthy 10 year old children to save 101 sickly octogenarians. At the risk of repetition: You can rationalize murder with that logic.

I don't agree that that's true at all. I don't think very many people would value the impact on society of 101 sickly octogenarians more than that made by 100 healthy ten year old children - do you? I wasn't speaking quantitatively. I didn't place a numerical value on it at all- and that wasn't what I was thinking when I said that.

That was your literal and quantitative interpretation of my use of the word "degree" . Maybe one of us is delusional or imprecise or too figurative or too literal - but who's to decide which one? See what I'm saying...

0 Replies

The answer is simple: Be as good as you can be. That's all God can expect you to do being as flawed as we are as humans. God does not expect us to be perfect. If he did, he wouldn't have made us imperfect.

0 Replies

Bella Dea wrote:

The answer is simple: Be as good as you can be. That's all God can expect you to do being as flawed as we are as humans. God does not expect us to be perfect. If he did, he wouldn't have made us imperfect.

That's the only thing I wanted to hear from making this topic. Yes...

0 Replies

Quote:

Be as good as you can be. That's all God can expect you to do ......

That's all your fellow humans expect of you as well.

Joe(it's even easier without all the magical thinking)Nation

0 Replies

I don't get it, Joe. Do you see yourself as trying to free the masses from the shackles of their oppressive beliefs, or do you have some deeply suppressed resentments against people of faith, or are you just a jerk who can't help taking little jabs at them?

If you are so freakin sanguine in your good-doesn't-require-God world, why do you have the need to make remarks that seem designed to argue someone out of having faith?

And you didn't ever reply to my other post. Can you admit that you are consciously insulting of people who express faith in something other than man?

0 Replies

Snood:
Maybe it's my impish smile, but when I talk about magic or astrology or Methodism or Catholicism or the belief that if you wear the same shirt you wore last year when you won the Super Bowl pool or Christian Fundamentalism or praying for rain, all in the breath, face to face, with friends and strangers, some of them laugh.

Some of them shake their heads in sadness at the loss of my soul.

Some of them actually enjoy the challenge of thinking about something that they rarely think about - what they believe.

And there is this: the more secure each one of them is in their faith, the less my jibing affects how they see the world or their gods or their belief that lighting a candle or spinning a prayer wheel accesses some power.

If they have the truth, the truth sets them free.
If they don't, they may be shaken.

Joe(shaken sometimes leads to thinking)Nation

PS: you can now have the last word on this, I shall not reply here, so that we don't further derail this thread.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
Be as good as you can be. That's all God can expect you to do ......

That's all your fellow humans expect of you as well.

Joe(it's even easier without all the magical thinking)Nation

Well, most people. Some people will never be satisfied.

0 Replies

Bella Dea wrote:

The answer is simple: Be as good as you can be.

Without an objective definition of the word good you're no farther ahead.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

Quote:
By that numerical sensibility it's OK to kill 100 healthy 10 year old children to save 101 sickly octogenarians. At the risk of repetition: You can rationalize murder with that logic.

I don't agree that that's true at all. I don't think very many people would value the impact on society of 101 sickly octogenarians more than that made by 100 healthy ten year old children - do you? I wasn't speaking quantitatively. I didn't place a numerical value on it at all- and that wasn't what I was thinking when I said that.

That was your literal and quantitative interpretation of my use of the word "degree" . Maybe one of us is delusional or imprecise or too figurative or too literal - but who's to decide which one? See what I'm saying...

Ethics is not a funtion of populist notions. Witch burning was considered good by "very many people".

0 Replies

hi Chumly,

Lessee, you don't believe in an objective standard of 'good' or 'right and wrong'; and you don't believe that even a subjective standard can be set by the majority in a community either, apparently, because you're afraid it will lead to 'witch burning'.

Anarchy about all that's left for you?

0 Replies

The good is that which pleases. Acquinas.

But who or what for? An individual, a society, a class, a lobby group, a football team, a patient in intensive care, a foetus.

And it happens enough that each of us can be a member of all these at once. And more. A family, a neighbourhood, a district.

An abortion is never good for a foetus unless the view is taken that life isn't worth living.

The "good" is a battleground drenched in blood.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Quote:

Ethics is not a funtion of populist notions. Witch burning was considered good by "very many people".

Honestly, I was being facetious Chumley- mainly because I don't think there will ever be a consensus of what is good and what isn't. That was my major point. The part that you highlighted was just me voicing my opinion about the fact that I don't think it's fair for people who are not involved in a certain activity to tell those who are that it isn't good for them- and that if something benefits a fair number of people (and I guess I should have added "without hurting others") then it could be considered to be of some value and maybe even "good" in some way.

But I do think effort should be recognized. As Bella said, if a person is doing the best they can- who can ask more than that? Unfortunately, I think many times people do (ask for more).

0 Replies

I kind of object to the question of "how good is good enough?"

Approach 1) If this is a pass fail senario, then at one point that you have satisfied all criteria, there no longer exists any reason to be better.

Approach 2) If this is not pass fail; as in the reason to be good has no correlation at all to salvation, then the question of how [much] good is only answered internally.

Is 'good' so easily measured that it can be calibrated?

"Give me a reason to be good beyond the consequence of sin."

0 Replies

Diest TKO quoted-

Quote:

"Give me a reason to be good beyond the consequence of sin."

Who said that if it wasn't de Sade?

0 Replies

Sorry. Double post.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Diest TKO quoted-

Quote:
"Give me a reason to be good beyond the consequence of sin."

Who said that if it wasn't de Sade?

"de Sade" wa eigo de nan desu ka?

0 Replies

I take it easy mainly as long as a truck doesn't crash through the picture window which is unlikely as thing stand.

0 Replies

How much good is good enough?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know