THE GOOD: how do you determine what it is?

by Terry 15 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Greenpalmtreestillmine

  Terry,

  HOW DO YOU determine what is the "good" thing for you to do, to think, to obtain?

  Well, from a purely personal point of view I believe balance can, most of the time, produce good in the things I do. And therefore those things which I cannot practice in a balanced way, such as addicitive behaviors and so on, should be avoided. But though I know this for me is good I am unable to always practice it.

  As for what I believe is good for me to think, that is something which for me continues to evolve. I used to believe my thinking processes were good but of late that is being re-evaluated and for now I am more content to sit quiet and listen and learn from the more balanced voices in the world rather than those who polarize. I suppose then balance is also my aim when it comes to what I think, it's just that I'm not yet ready to practice it in an intelligent way so I remain a learner. For instance, I believe both major political parties have something good to contribute but they insist on trampling one another. A balanced view would recognize that neither one has all the answers and that co-operation between them is the best thing, the balanced thing, the thing which will bring the most good to the American people. But just how such a true co-operation between these two conflicting and polarizing parties can be accomplished eludes me so I am content to listen and learn, recognizing my limitations on that subject.

  When it comes to what is good to obtain there are I suppose 3 questions that can be asked. Can I afford it? Will it be detrimental to my family? Will it bring some pleasure into my life and that of my family?

  Sabrina
• 

  Terry

  Let me read you three statements about "the good" which I think are worth hearing.

  The first is Spinoza. He says:

  "The terms good and evil indicate nothing positive in things considered in themselves. One and the same thing may at the same time be both good and evil or indifferent according to the person who makes the judgement. The good is merely that which individuals regards as useful to themselves; that which satisfies or pleases them."

  Hobbes says:

  "Pleasure is merely the appearance or sense of the good, as this pleasure is the appearance or sense of evil."

  Locke says:

  "What has an aptness to produce pleasure in us, that we call good. And that which is apt to produce pain in us we call evil."

  My opinion?

  If I look at human nature and consider natural desires, I think all the goods that constitute happiness fall into four major classes.

  1.External goods, the things we call wealth, all the economic goods and services we employ, all the commodities.

  2.Bodily goods, things like health and physical pleasure and rest.

  3.Social goods, which satisfy our human social nature, our friends and the society in which we live.

  4.Sentient goods; knowledge, truth, wisdom and the moral virtues.

  All the above correspond to our natural desires. It is a happy person who attains them in a measure balanced by his ability to enjoy them.

  In the first three categories there is an element of chance. Bad fortune make remove them from you or good fortune reward you beyond your ability earn them.

  But, the fourth category--the only goods that are entirely within our control, entirely within my power of choice and action.
• 

  Double Edge

  Hint: think of having something placed rather violently where the sun don't shine......

  THAT definately can't be good.
• 

  gumby

  Here's an easy answer.

  Take 50 people.

  Have all 50 people try these things.

  Sex, ice cream, sleep, good drugs, back rub.

  If all 50 people agree they like these things.....it's prolly a good thing.

  Gumby
• 

  Terry

  Gumby says:Take 50 people.

  Have all 50 people try these things.

  Sex, ice cream, sleep, good drugs, back rub.

  If all 50 people agree they like these things.....it's prolly a good thing.

  Maybe on Pay per View?
• 

  Greenpalmtreestillmine

  Spinoza:

  The terms good and evil indicate nothing positive in things considered in themselves. One and the same thing may at the same time be both good and evil or indifferent according to the person who makes the judgement. The good is merely that which individuals regards as useful to themselves; that which satisfies or pleases them."

  Since the statement above is contrasting good and evil I take it then that it is moral good under discussion rather than personal taste etc. "Good" in my opinion is a universal standard and qualitative only when reason and common sense dictate. In other words, it is simply unacceptable and simplistic to say that "good and evil" can be one and the same thing "according to the person who makes the judgement". There are basic standards of what is good and evil and the personal judgement and actions of an individual who differs from that standard is almost always considered wrong at best or criminal at worst.

  Certainly a father who commits incest with a minor is doing what he thinks is good for himself and a man who steals also believes he is doing good for himself. The father who commits incest though is not doing a good but rather an evil while the man who steals his actions are qualitative. If he steals food from a vendor because his family is dying from starvation then, though the act is wrong according to the law, it is qualitatively good according to reason and common sense. But if he steals material goods from hurricane victims purely for monetary gain then, though it is a good for himself, it is according to the general standard an evil devoid of any good.

  Hobbes:

  "Pleasure is merely the appearance or sense of the good, as this pleasure is the appearance or sense of evil."

  Pleasure is pleasure and good is good, they are not equitable. Sex with a loving adult partner is pleasure and for some so is sex with a child. The fact that pleasure is present in both events does not of itself equate with good. In fact, even sex with a loving adult partner does not always equate with good if for instance one of the participants is married to someone else.

  Locke:

  "What has an aptness to produce pleasure in us, that we call good. And that which is apt to produce pain in us we call evil."

  A true statement. And here lies the problem imo. Is something good simply because we call it good? or is it evil simply because we call it evil?

  Or do the qualities of good and evil go beyond opinion or self-determination or pleasure or self-interests?

  Shouldn't good be good for all? Shouldn't what is good for me also be good for my neighbor across the street or on the other side of the globe?

  Plilate asked, "What is truth?", today's question is "What is good?" Maybe both questions have the same answer.