God and Good

[Marvin Edwards]

We are born into a world of good, which we did not create. Not just material things, but ideals, like justice, liberty, and equality. And spiritual values, like courage, joy, and compassion.

We benefit from what others, in good faith, have left for us. In return, we sacrifice selfish interest when necessary to preserve this good for others. For the sake of our children, and our children’s children, we seek to understand, to serve, to protect, and perhaps, humbly, to enhance this greater good.

It is an act of faith to live by moral principle when the greedy prosper by dishonest means. It is an act of faith to stand up for right when the crowd is headed the wrong way. It is an act of faith to return good for evil.

We have seen Hell. We have seen gang cultures whose rite of passage is an act of mayhem or murder. We have seen racial slavery, persecution, and genocide. We have seen revenge spread violence through whole communities.

We envision Heaven, where people live in peace and every person is valued. It can only be reached when each person seeks good for himself only through means that are consistent with achieving good for all.

If God exists, then that is His command. If God does not exist, then that is what we must command of ourselves and of each other. Either way, whether we achieve Heaven or Hell is up to us.

 

[Politesse]

It can only be reached when each person seeks good for himself only through means that are consistent with achieving good for all.

Ah, but what is "the good"? That's the millennia old question.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

It can only be reached when each person seeks good for himself only through means that are consistent with achieving good for all.

Ah, but what is "the good"? That's the millennia old question.

We call something “good” if it meets a real need we have as an individual, a society, or a species. A “moral good” is actually good for us and benefits us in some way. A “moral harm” unnecessarily damages us or diminishes our rights in some way.

 

[Politesse]

It can only be reached when each person seeks good for himself only through means that are consistent with achieving good for all.

Ah, but what is "the good"? That's the millennia old question.

We call something “good” if it meets a real need we have as an individual, a society, or a species. A “moral good” is actually good for us and benefits us in some way. A “moral harm” unnecessarily damages us or diminishes our rights in some way.

Nearly all actions do both of these things to some degree.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

It can only be reached when each person seeks good for himself only through means that are consistent with achieving good for all.

Ah, but what is "the good"? That's the millennia old question.

We call something “good” if it meets a real need we have as an individual, a society, or a species. A “moral good” is actually good for us and benefits us in some way. A “moral harm” unnecessarily damages us or diminishes our rights in some way.

Nearly all actions do both of these things to some degree.

Indeed. Defining "good" is pretty straightforward. Measuring it is a whole other matter. But, to the degree that benefit and harm can be objectively measured, moral judgment is objective. Lacking that, we fall back on subjective judgments, and the current set of rules.

Still, all arguments as to whether this or that course of action is better, or whether this or that rule is better, ultimately ends up being about the estimated benefits and harms. (The consequentialists create the rules. Then the deontologists spread them as the "word of God").

 

[rousseau]

We are born into a world of good, which we did not create. Not just material things, but ideals, like justice, liberty, and equality. And spiritual values, like courage, joy, and compassion.

We benefit from what others, in good faith, have left for us. In return, we sacrifice selfish interest when necessary to preserve this good for others. For the sake of our children, and our children’s children, we seek to understand, to serve, to protect, and perhaps, humbly, to enhance this greater good.

It is an act of faith to live by moral principle when the greedy prosper by dishonest means. It is an act of faith to stand up for right when the crowd is headed the wrong way. It is an act of faith to return good for evil.

'It is an act of faith to return good for evil'. That sounds like we might be on the same page.

I'm of the view that living by moral principle isn't quite enough. Most people follow moral norms in the same way any decent person would do. But to have real moral sense you're looking at virtue, which is defined by high moral standards. Returning good for evil would be an example of that, imo.

I've heard arguments that Buddhism is the most moral religion because it's inclusive of animals. Respecting every living thing with no preconditions is likely what we should aim for, which I really don't see in too many people.

 

[steve_bank]

We are born into a world of good, which we did not create. Not just material things, but ideals, like justice, liberty, and equality. And spiritual values, like courage, joy, and compassion.

Observation of our human history through today says otherwise.

The Christian illusion that comes from the Jewish creation myth is we are something different tn the rest of nature, which we are not.

In a general sense we are chimps with articulate speech. Screeching, screaming, temperamental feces throwing creatures. We are chimsp with nuclear weapons.

The evolutionary norm in the ecosystem is run fast or be eaten.

 

[Politesse]

I've heard arguments that Buddhism is the most moral religion because it's inclusive of animals. Respecting every living thing with no preconditions is likely what we should aim for, which I really don't see in too many people.

Suerly Jain has the advantage, then? That sect takes ahimsa the most seriously, even among the Dharmic traditions.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Most people follow moral norms in the same way any decent person would do. But to have real moral sense you're looking at virtue, which is defined by high moral standards

Reading Kant for me is like walking into a brick wall. There's only a couple of things he said that I can recall as significant. First is the universal law principle, which says we should create no rules that we are unwilling to follow ourselves (a version of "do unto others..."). The second is his special insight upon the nature of virtues. He said that the only virtue that cannot be used just as easily for evil as for good, is a "good will". It is that single virtue by which we judge a person to be moral.

 

[rousseau]

I've heard arguments that Buddhism is the most moral religion because it's inclusive of animals. Respecting every living thing with no preconditions is likely what we should aim for, which I really don't see in too many people.

Suerly Jain has the advantage, then? That sect takes ahimsa the most seriously, even among the Dharmic traditions.

The specific quote on Buddhism came from some famous name I can't remember, but yea I know Ahimsa tends to permeate through Indian thought. I've read up on Jainism before, should look again.

Ahimsa is also decidedly central to my own worldview. I'm conflicted about seafood these days but pure vegetarianism is *hard*.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

I've heard arguments that Buddhism is the most moral religion because it's inclusive of animals. Respecting every living thing with no preconditions is likely what we should aim for, which I really don't see in too many people.

Suerly Jain has the advantage, then? That sect takes ahimsa the most seriously, even among the Dharmic traditions.

The specific quote on Buddhism came from some famous name I can't remember, but yea I know Ahimsa tends to permeate through Indian thought. I've read up on Jainism before, should look again.

Ahimsa is also decidedly central to my own worldview. I'm conflicted about seafood these days but pure vegetarianism is *hard*.

My only moral concern about vegetarianism is that during an ice age the human species may depend upon animals for food. It would be harmful if we lost the ability to hunt.

 

[Politesse]

I've heard arguments that Buddhism is the most moral religion because it's inclusive of animals. Respecting every living thing with no preconditions is likely what we should aim for, which I really don't see in too many people.

Suerly Jain has the advantage, then? That sect takes ahimsa the most seriously, even among the Dharmic traditions.

The specific quote on Buddhism came from some famous name I can't remember, but yea I know Ahimsa tends to permeate through Indian thought. I've read up on Jainism before, should look again.

Ahimsa is also decidedly central to my own worldview. I'm conflicted about seafood these days but pure vegetarianism is *hard*.

My only moral concern about vegetarianism is that during an ice age the human species may depend upon animals for food. It would be harmful if we lost the ability to hunt.

Ah, yes. The thrill of the hunt.



Where oh where are those wild game?

 

[rousseau]

I've heard arguments that Buddhism is the most moral religion because it's inclusive of animals. Respecting every living thing with no preconditions is likely what we should aim for, which I really don't see in too many people.

Suerly Jain has the advantage, then? That sect takes ahimsa the most seriously, even among the Dharmic traditions.

The specific quote on Buddhism came from some famous name I can't remember, but yea I know Ahimsa tends to permeate through Indian thought. I've read up on Jainism before, should look again.

Ahimsa is also decidedly central to my own worldview. I'm conflicted about seafood these days but pure vegetarianism is *hard*.

My only moral concern about vegetarianism is that during an ice age the human species may depend upon animals for food. It would be harmful if we lost the ability to hunt.

It's a balancing act for sure. I don't judge others for eating meat, I just decided to stop doing it myself.

When you take a true holistic view we're a meat-eating animal just like every other omnivore or carnivore. I don't think it's reasonable to expect us to collectively overcome our own instincts, or likely.

 

[bilby]

Humans eat carrion. We enjoy doing so. It's possible to survive without, but then, it's possible to survive in a number of very miserable conditions.

For what it's worth (probably not much), the numbers of pigs, sheep, cows, goats, and chickens that would currently exist without the human propensity for meat eating would be a minuscule fraction of the current populations of those species.

 

[Swammerdami]

I've spent many years living in rural Thailand. Monks generally do not swat mosquitoes. My wife would kill mosquitoes but not much else. (Our house was infested with house lizards. She rooted for me to kill them, just not while she was a witness.)

Once a Russel's pit viper got inside our house (where he feasted on a tokay gecko) and was captured and brought totally under control with a special head noose. Russel's pit viper is one of the deadliest snakes on the planet. But instead of terminating him with extreme prejudice, the viper was tossed free into the weeds just 35 meters from our house.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Where do you draw the line? Is a small insect entitled to life, while a giant oak tree is not? While any tree's "thought" progresses very slowly, might one not argue that a tree or coral atoll is as "sentient" as an insect or worm?

And how can abstinence from killing be compatible with the very construction of nature? The hawk preys on the fox which preys on the mouse which preys on the insect which preys on the smaller insect which preys on vegetation. Some vegetation even preys on insects.

The famous thinker Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz grappled with the notion that the most perfect world God could create still contains evil and suffering. I'm not sure Leibniz ever makes explicit the point I would make: That the triumph of Good is impossible in a world without Evil.

 

[bilby]

might one not argue that a tree or coral atoll is as "sentient" as an insect or worm?

One might equally argue that an insect or worm is as "unthinking" as a tree or coral atoll.

 

[steve_bank]

What is gpd is survival. If we do not surve anyth g else is meningless.

Can we be 'too good'?

We, the USA' goes around the world trying to force. coerce, and a cajole our values on others because we think it is the higest good.

With a few exceptions, the general result has been a lot of misery. Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Vietnam.

We are trying to pressure Iran, NK, Chona, and Saudi Arabia to no effect. Witness Qatar during the World Cup.

Muslims in the word do not necessarily see good the same way the west does. Christians think they have a lock on absolute good with a thousand year trail of condlict. Chinese and Russian communists thought they ad the highest good and sought to bring down the west.

What happens when my good coflicts with your good?

It leads into the ancient debte of what is good. What does it mean to be a good person. Confucius had an image of the superior moral individual.

I don't steal or murder hoping in turn no one steals from or murders me. Enlightened self interest?

 

[Learner]

It leads into the ancient debte of what is good. What does it mean to be a good person. Confucius had an image of the superior moral individual

I don't steal or murder hoping in turn no one steals from or murders me. Enlightened self interest?

Sounds good to me steve.

 

[steve_bank]

It leads into the ancient debte of what is good. What does it mean to be a good person. Confucius had an image of the superior moral individual

I don't steal or murder hoping in turn no one steals from or murders me. Enlightened self interest?

Sounds good to me steve.

The basis for our philosophical moral and ethical debate goes back to the ancient Greeks well before Jesus. No god required, just obsevation and thought.

 

[rousseau]

Most people follow moral norms in the same way any decent person would do. But to have real moral sense you're looking at virtue, which is defined by high moral standards

Reading Kant for me is like walking into a brick wall. There's only a couple of things he said that I can recall as significant. First is the universal law principle, which says we should create no rules that we are unwilling to follow ourselves (a version of "do unto others..."). The second is his special insight upon the nature of virtues. He said that the only virtue that cannot be used just as easily for evil as for good, is a "good will". It is that single virtue by which we judge a person to be moral.

IMO, a lot of what we call moral behavior is basically done so we can continue to thrive within our social group. Not a bad thing in itself, but having goodwill might only extend to those who matter to us. If you have goodwill towards your closest friends and family, but cheat or ignore people who don't matter to you, do you really have any moral sense? Or just enough to serve your own purposes?

There was a member here some time ago who described 'the objective good life' as one where we keep all transactions to those we encounter positive. I think the kicker is that this has to apply to everyone, within reasonable limits.