You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Some thoughts about the obvious.
Who or what defines "good" or "evil"? We must first define "good," in order to intend it and define "evil," in order to avoid it. Is good mere self-preservation instinct? Is good merely an untilitarian accounting of which side has more meatbags that benefit? Is "good" common consensus, or does it derive from something beyond man? If good is mere consensus, then isn't such definition meaningless? If it derives from beyond man, then how did man acquire such knowledge?
Maybe I'm being reductionist here, but the good can very well be that thing that gives us the result we want. If you want to accumulate wealth, for example, the good is the useful. If you want any desire, in fact, the good is what can fill that desire.
But people who seek wealth, or who seek anything else, do so to finally get some feeling of happiness. So the supreme good is that which achieves such a result, and that is, of course, the moral good, from there to happiness consists in the practice of virtue, as the Aristotelians say.
The evil is therefore, what appears to be good, all those good that are not the supreme good, why? because they don't satisfy the final objective that they are supposed to satisfy; happiness.
What do you think of this definition?
We can intuit the good, although we can also rationalize it to understand it, as I have done.
"Good" then is not a moral question but rather a functional one. The common denominator for all loving beings would be death, and the instinct towards survival and propagation of one's genetic information would be the highest functuonal purpose of any living creature. Happiness is transient, neurochemical reward mechanism that serves, hopefully, to enhance the survival mechanism of creatures. In nature, eusocialist creatures dominate the ecosphere, due to the superior survival characteristic of such communal organization in gene propagation and preservation.
In human history, those societies that were able to achieve hierarchal patterns closest to eusocialism have passed on their legacies. The patronage system of Rome, Confucian social harmony of the Middle Kingdoms, feudal liege-vassal hierarchy of post-Charlemagn Europe, Aztec and Incan imperial hegemony, etc. Those social organization that deviate the most from eusocialist model seem to be the forgotten and enslaved societies. Individuality and self-determinism appear to benefit gene propagation, but in actuality, conformist eusocialist model have increased probability of gene propagation for a given group.
In order to truly live a good life, a man must deny his individuality and embrace the self of the group. When the goals and preservation of his group becomes his transcendent priority, such a man has reached enlightenment.
If the human's goal is survival, then yes, what you say is true. But what happens after we survive? What do we want to survive for?
Do you think that surviving is a goal in itself, or on the contrary, do we survive for something else?
We survive, of course, to live, and what do we live for? Here we return to what I said in the previous comment. Don't you think?
Definition, again, clouds the topic of discussion. Is "happiness" a true good or apparent good that misleads? What is the purpose of life: existence or happiness? If man fails to propagate his (and his group's) genetic information, as well as risking his survivability, in pursuit of happiness, is the resulting effect evil or good? Is an addict's slow suicide a good (pursuing happiness) or evil (decrease in survivability)?
I already expected you to mention that, because I am not either of the belief that the purpose of life is happiness, nor do I believe that happiness can be pursued, and perhaps what I have said may be misinterpreted.
Although let's avoid talking about the purpose of life, which can encompass many other things, but the purpose of man, which is, in my opinion, that man puts himself. Each man chooses his purpose, as does each civilization.
The goal of man, whatever he puts himself, is "the good", whether he believes that the good is the accumulation of capital, whether he believes survival is the good, or any other thing. And when man gets such good, he feels happiness, although the goal is not happiness, but happiness is the result of his goal.
He who pursues happiness in itself will be deprived of obtaining it then for what has been said.
There are, in fact, moments in which happiness is not a positive thing, as in the case you pose. The addict believes, because of his ignorance, that what he does is good, because he gets the result he wants in this way.
The problem is precisely that what men want, is not happiness like that, because that is a passing happiness, and the human wants, as far as possible, a lasting happiness, eternal if possible.
Then, reformulating, many things give us happiness, in general, the obtaining of anything perceived as good gives us happiness, however, the one that gives us a more lasting happiness is the practice of virtue, the moral good. Because... what is happiness? You have defined happiness as emotion, but not as feeling.
The feeling of happiness is that we have when we feel we have what we want, when we don't want to change things because we are satisfied with them.
The ideal purpose of man would be, therefore, the moral good.
If each man defines his purpose, and therefore the "good," then would this not effectively indicate that "good" has no definition and man is purposeless? Without a constant reference, everything is subjective and relative. Absolute concepts like "good," "evil," "purpose" have no place in a relativistic universe of no center and all periphery. In such a universe, addicts are actually the wisest of all men, since they correctly recognize the ultimate meaninglessness of life and their place, or non-place, in an amoral universe.
No, because what they think is good is not really good, it's just that they perceive it in that way, it seems to be good but it is not, that's why I said that evil is what appears to be good.
By what objective metric, then is good measure and defined? The only constant within this universe, regarding life's basic common denominator, seems to be survival and propagation of genetic information.