Thanks to everyone who posted last week on my question of "What does it mean to be a human being?" or "What is a human being."
Before I get too in depth in this article, if you will look to the right of the page, you'll see a "Digg" button. If you enjoy this article, please click on the Digg button. Digg is a website that links to frequently visited websites, so say for instance I get 200 Diggs, that may put me on their website, which will build my reader base and allow me to reach a larger audience. It's also a cool way to see what other people are reading these days, check out their website: http://digg.com/
Now, I received some very interesting and differing opinions on what it means to be a human, such as:
Being a human means...
Having a specific genetic makeup
Being able to become something more than you are
Possessing Free Will
Being moral beings
Being a product of our biological and social environments
All of those are very credible definitions of what it means to be a human. So, the definition we have to work with is human beings have a specific genetic makeup, possess the ability to become more than they are, have free will, possess a knowledge of right and wrong, and are products of their environments. That's a pretty solid definition! So, let's work with that.
My next question is this: How do we evaluate our lives as humans? By what standard do we measure living "the good life?" Based upon the genetic definition above would you say that being a "good" human means having the perfect genetic make-up, for example, being the ideal height, having perfect vision, not being bald, etc.?
But, now that I think of it, before we can pose this question, we must first answer the question of "What does it mean for something to be good or bad?" Is there such a thing as good or bad? Some philosophers will argue that there is no objective good or bad, basically good is what you like and bad is what you don't like.
So, this week's question is "Is there such a thing as Good and Bad, and if so what does it mean for something to be Good or Bad."
Plato had an interesting view of Good and Bad based upon his belief in the realm of the forms. Basically, Plato believed that there was a perfect world outside of ours, where everything that exists in this world has an ideal version of it in that perfect world. For example, we have chairs in our world, but in the world of the forms there is a perfect chair. And something was judged as good or bad depending on how much it correlated to its version in the world of the forms. This belief is also commonly used using God as the ideal. In this view, God is the perfect standard, the things we do that are closest to God are considered good and the things we do against God's nature are considered bad or sin.
Another philosophical school, the utilitarians, argue that good is quantifiable in the greatest utility for the greatest number. Here's an example: Let's say you have five people dying in a hospital: one needs a kidney, one needs a heart, one needs a lung, etc. Then a semi-healthy guy comes in for a check-up. In the utilitarian view, the "good" thing to do would be to carve up the healthy guy and give his healthy organs to the five other people. So, you have five healthy people vs. one. The greatest utility for the greatest number.
Perhaps the most famous ideal of the good is the "Golden Rule." Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The philosopher Immanuel Kant called this the Categorical Imperative. Which basically said "People are never to be used as a means to an end, but should be viewed as an end unto themselves."
So, there are a lot of views on this subject. What do you think?
Reason for Hope this week: Check out this website:
http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/
Check out this poem by Mother Theresa titled "Anyway"
People are unreasonable, illogical and self-centered.
Love them anyway.
If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish ulterior motives.
Do good anyway.
If you are successful, you win false friends and true enemies.
Succeed anyway.
The good you do today will be forgotten tomorrow.
Do good anyway.
Honesty and frankness make you vulnerable.
Be honest and frank anyway.
What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight.
Build anyway.
People really need help but may attack you if you help them.
Help people anyway.
Give the world the best you have and you'll get kicked in the teeth.
Give the world the best you've got anyway.
11 comments:
I thought about this for a while, it is a hard question to approach. My starting point would consider an individual's genetic potential and how well they actualize that potential in their lifetime. I think true happiness comes when someone has the self-knowledge needed to engage in the relationships, career and interests that will be most fulfilling to them. People who are actualized usually become leaders or at least influential in their chosen fields/interests (politics, science, art etc.) and as a by-product they are also valued by society at large leading to higher levels of personal satisfaction.
I imagine that a person that finds themselves in tune in those areas will have "the good life."
Eric,
Thanks for turning me on to Mother Theresa's poem. It's such a great expansion of the Golden Rule. Coincidentally, I heard a country song on the radio after reading your blog entry that basically sang Mother Theresa's poem. Small world.
So, this week's question is "Is there such a thing as Good and Bad, and if so what does it mean for something to be Good or Bad."
I used to argue with a friend of mine constantly about whether people were naturally good but turned bad, or naturallly bad but occaisionally turned good. I'm of the school that humans are naturally good...it's their environments that turn them bad. Using that position, I'd have to say I believe there is such a thing as good and bad.
Haven't you had a good day and a bad day? How about a good date or a bad date? Did you feel like your run was a good one or a bad one? How that last deal you got, was it a good one or bad one? Did you ever think some students did a good job in the field, or a bad job? I would have to say, and I'm guessing it's obvious, that there is such a thing as Good and Bad. The challenge is to explain what Good and Bad mean.
For something to be Good, it means that something must meet or exceed expectations. For something to be Bad, it means that something must fall short of expectations.
I think philosohy, or any New Humanist dialogue, get's a little too deep to attract me or tempt me into its folds. I'm a fast decision maker, and when it comes to questions, once I start to answer them, I answer them fast...and for some reason, confidently.
I'm sitting here really trying to understand where you might take this topic if we were sitting on the steps of some government building...and I haven't read your first commentor's input yet. I wonder if you'd challenge me with "How does "good grief" fit into your thoughts, Neil?" Shoot, I don't know... :)
It's interesting, to be good or bad is such a straightforward thing in my mind. Discounting all sarcasism, it really doesn come down to meeting/not meeting expectations. Ironically, meeting those expectations depends on the condition of the person deciding on whether something is good or bad.
Neil McDonnell
Oops, seems I answered "What is the Good Life" and not..."Is there such a thing as Good and Bad, and if so what does it mean for something to be Good or Bad."
I like Neil's answer in the sense that it is pragmatic, sounds like a Total Quality Managment principle, statistical variation etc.
I would agree that pragmatism is often a good way to approach the question of good/bad.
In the book "Freakonomics" the author shows several mathematical relationships to prove that declining crime rates in America ,in certain time frames, were due to increases in abortion. Reducing the number of children, espescially from homes where they were not likely to have financial advantage (low SES), reduced violent murder rates, robberies etc.
Some argue that the option of abortion is good for the individual and society at large, others would argue it is bad or perhaps "evil." Abortion is very complex; would the mother self-abort? Was there a rape involved...incest? Would the baby have disabilities, drug addiction, aids or other physiological problems?
I don't have a view on that question other than it is not a simple one but I know what the pragmatic answer would be.
I suppose I'm of the opinion that good and bad are contextual, or relative. I guess that is why we need laws, too many of us grey thinkers running around :)
Eric,
I am only suggesting that pragmatism alone is not sufficient in answering this question but is one of several perspectives one can take to approach it. Abortion is an example of something that I view as morally wrong on a personal level but on a societal level is allowed, for pragmatic or for other reasons. As for your example on child pornography, or other total attrocities, yes that is definetly evil. A good tool for your professor that you use here quite effectively. That is one area that is obviously black and white...I would only say there is a lot of grey in life. I can see valid points from both schools of philosophy that you mentioned. Thanks for your comments, they keep me thinking.
Eric,
Keep the philosophical dialogue going...at the very least it has served to increase my vocabulary. :) Seriously, keep the conversations deep as nature motivates you; I'll comment with a layman's understanding of the question at hand.
Regarding all the comments, I think I choose the apple. Did I win? :) Your example of how an apple should be measured for its goodness or badness quality is interesting.
While I understand and respect yours and Jane's opinion about how an apple should taste, I make my decision of good/bad differently. I don't decide if an apple is good before I bite into it; that decision is made from the first bite and constantly revised until I fling the core away. Seems similar to how I decide if someone I meet is good or bad. There's just too many people out there to set criteria before I get to know them. There are too many types of apples out there to decide on the criteria before eating them. I think red delicious apples are good because of their crisp, juicy texture; granny smith's on the otherhand have me looking for a lip twisting tartness that will wake up every taste bud in my mouth.
How are we to know if this blog of yours is good or bad? :)
Neil
Eric, This is a very stimulating blog. I appreciate the thoughtful high level of discussion. I've struggled with this issue all of my life. Being raised in a Jewish family I accepted the notion of the 10 commandments as having real value and a depth of meaning. After recently reading End of Faith and a Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris, I realized my views on the 10 commandments were very naive. I certainly do not believe people should be killed for using God's name in vain. I do not believe commiting adultery or coveting one's neighbor's wife should be punished by stoning to death. Reflecting on these issues forces any rational individual to become a relativist. Good is always context based. The religious right has a dogmatic rigid view of the bible which limits discussion and creates many logical paradoxes. The discussion about dividing up a healthy person for the good of others is a great example of defining limits. I think most of us would be willing/and do give blood. Some will offer a kidney to a loved one, but that is usually where our physical generosity (literally) ends. I was watching a special on National geographic looking at behaviors in a prison system. It became quickly apparent that our lowest level of behavior exists in this setting. Racism is rampant and everyone is looking out for themselves. On a broader level, the movie Borat, captured how group association can influence people's actions towards a more base level. There are few people like Mother Teresa. It is still not clear to me how to judge her actions. They are based on a Catholic philosophy which according to Sam Harris is a flawed and irrational system. I believe good and evil do exist in a contextually based reality, but in the absence of a religious motivation it is still hard to explain behaviors such as hers on a purely humanist perspective. I am counting on you to solve all of the world's challenges. Thanks for allowing me to ramble.
Brad,
The beauty of being Catholic (as I am) is that despite any flaws or irrationality in our system, we can always ask forgiveness. :)
Eric,
Expectations and experience in the moment are the same to me. It goes to my whole belief that I always get the parking spot in the front...except when I don't and then I always have a good walk.
Looking forward to your next topic since this one actually is really hard for me feel like I've grasped it. It seems like a good topic though, or bad...depending on how we define the two. :)
Neil McDonnell
Eric,
As far as advice on how to approach the blog in terms of ensuring that a wide audience will enjoy it. My advice would be that you should just be yourself, it will attract a certain audience and you are doing a great job in stimulating your readers and responding to them.
As for your statement on evolution; "survival of the fittest" has been expanded in contemporary evolution theory. Your thoughts on it were the very thoughts that led to a study on meerkats and group dynamics in animal behavior. The meerkat (like prarie dogs) are prey to large predatory birds but they showed what would be deemed irrational behavior, according to the strict "survival of the fittest" mantra. They call out to protect other Meerkats even though it puts them in danger as individuals. This study showed that group survival and the necessary adaptive mechanisms also play a role in survival for the species.
Your personal strenghts would not do much for you, or anyone else, without a society that helps you to survive or even flourish. You are dependent on others (doctors, lawyers, police, firefighters..), just like the Meerkats. Your strength in competitive terms has allowed you the cognitive ability to understand that as a highly adaptive quality.
Brad,
I have gone through the same growing pains as you with my religious faith. I was raised "loosely" as a Christian but I saw too many flaws in its history, religious cleansing etc. Since then, not intentionally, I came across historical readings that showed the role of the Judeo-Christian faiths that led to so many positives in our everyday lives. Decentralization of the church (Martin Luther), for example, is just one example of how local churches were empowered and stimulated the same in local governments. You can trace these developments to further developments that have led to improvements in individual rights and freedoms. The Judeo-Christian road has been rocky, but so has the road of any other faith or philosophy once put into practice. As for the ten commandments, they are generally good rules; don't kill, steal etc. You were not naive in putting trust in them. They are tools that have been misused by people that likely would have misused any system. You are wise to question your beliefs and roots, many never do, but I would also say you should take pride in them. Judaism has produced many of the worlds greatest thinkers. They used the tools and reflected upon them with good judgment. A good friend that is Christian helped me to realize this and I am again "loosely" Christian with some Buddhist elements thrown in :). I would say to you that your growing pains are normal and likely predictable stages in a person that would not fail the system by following an absolutist and destructive path that could be gleaned from it.
As Eric pointed out to me, it is as unhealthy to go without some white and black thinking, as it is to go without the grey.
I came across this blog and found it absolutely fascinating, and thought I'd put my two cent's worth in. I'm not a philosopher or psychologist, so take the following with a grain of salt (and probably a nice glass of wine)... might make more sense that way.
I've read the wonderful posts put up by those before me and my thoughts run pretty concurrent with theirs for the majority of the discussional aspects. I think that whether we call it "good", "bad", "meets expectations", "fails expectations", "just" or "unjust", there exists in the spectrum of our rational thinking two polar opposites. The labels are mere formalities, the underlying principle is that there is something that we, personally, believe... and we judge our surroundings based on those beliefs. A benchmark, if you will. (That one's for you, Daigidan... some six sigma for your Total Quality Management)
What for one person might be 'good', whether it's the evaluation of an apple based on earlier apple experiences or the rational justification of cutting up some poor naiive patient who came in for a routine physical, seems to me to be based on three main things: (1) Prior experience (a.k.a. the apple) (2) Societal and secular conditioning (3) Reasoning and personal logic. I'll take the apple as an example, since neil did a wonderful job of illustrating his point with it.
Let's say I have an apple in my hand, and begin to eat. In order to judge whether the apple was good or bad, to me, I would evaluate many things. (1) I would first think back to what an apple has tasted like before: the flavor and texture, the enjoyment I am used to associating with eating one. If the current apple measures up to those prior experiences, then I am one step closer to thinking of it as a good apple. (2) I would then, undoubtedly subconsciously, think of what I've been told and taught by society as to what makes a good apple. Is it clean? Is it round and juicy? Is it even an apple? (In ancient times, a tomato was called a "love apple"... which by the standards of our society today would make for a lousy pie and a not-so-enjoyable eating experience). While this example may not drag in much of the societal values of an apple, I hope you can see what point I'm trying to get to. And (3) I would finally mull over in my head what I personally enjoy in an apple. Knowing what my benchmark is (prior experience) and what I've been taught by conditioning is a good apple, I then think about how my preferences would skew my appreciation. Do I happen to prefer apples that are more tart? Less juicy? With those ingenious little worm holes all over it? If my preference strongly overrides the first two, then I may answer that it's a good apple, based solely on the here and now. It wouldn't matter if society and twenty five years of eating square, blue apples told me that a good apple was that way, if I enjoyed mine round and sweet, then I would say that it is personally evaluated to be a good apple. If my preference and reasoning isn't overly strong, then I may default to deciding that it's an overall good apple, albeit a bit sweet/tart/juicy.
I guess my main thought is that "good" and "bad" are such subjective terms that it's hard to rationally define them, and that our evaluation of 'good' and 'bad' things (or events) is based on our interaction with the enviornment around us and our own internal thoughts. Perhaps that explains why the world as a whole has yet to determine global rules for good and bad, and why my friend thinks olives are "good", when I most definitely do not. :)
Artemis....a greek goddess, that doesn't like olives? Hmm....
I do like your answer though, very well said. You make a good point that people make judgments using a locus of control that is either internal or external, or a struggle between the two.
Eric,
So far, what I've been hearing from you all is that you don't necessarily believe in "Good the noun." It's basically just in personal preference.
If that's the case, how can we have a legal system or a society even?
I think that we have a need for a legal system just for that very purpose. Otherwise we could just do away with lawyers....hmm maybe we can work on doing that anyway.
If the only arbiter of good and bad is personal preference, wouldn't that create a lot of competing agendas.
Yes, the democrats and the republicans at least and in all their flavors and with all their lobbyists and special interest groups...a good example in the realm of mainstream politics.
Doesn't there have to be something that overrides our own personal preferences, even if that's simply the needs of society at large outweigh the needs of the individual
Sounds utilitarian to me *smiles*.
I think there are some basic truths but I think they get complicated quickly.
Eric,
Wow, we have been friends a long time. I prefer my readings on Adam Smith to those of Machiavelli personally. I sum up Adam Smith's as create value and it will be returned to you. I agree with the premise of natural law and could again use the example of the ten commandments as basic guidelines. I agree that there is something "basic" or perhaps "human" that people use as a baseline for morals, ethics and laws. Killing another is obviously immoral as a random act, I would call that a simple truth. Laws then consider the grey area that surround real life instances of murder, self defense, premeditation, etc.
Post a Comment