When (and how) something (or someone) is "good."

[The Voice of Time]

Just saying. If any of you accept "good as an x", you are inflating the meaning of good, and good is no longer good.

[duszek]

Perhaps "is good" is simply another way of saying "I approve of it".

Is it possible to say: It is good but I do not approve of it.

Or: I approve of it but it is not good.
Or: I approve of it but it is bad.

[The Voice of Time]

If you're evil it is ^^

But no, good is not just another way of saying approve of. Approval is approval, good is good. People can approve of things which are not necessarily good, because in their world evil may be a necessity. An example of this are the people who thinks Hiroshima was necessary, they know they killed thousands of women and children and damaged generations of populations, but in their eyes it's "them or us", therefore they approve of it, but it was never a question of it being a good deed, because of course by most moral standards it was an horrific and cruel act, but, because in their eyes evil may sometimes be necessary, this was to them a "necessity", and so they approved.

[prof]

Hi Prof,
Sounds like quite a tight definition. I have a question tho'.

Does this in the end fall into some kind of utilitarian calculus? As there are sound reasons to build a hydroelectric plant, the outcomes meet with approval and something worthwhile is done, however respect is shown to many others but some have to have their homes flooded even tho' it is performed by someone with principles. So is it a good and bad action?

It can be handled by Hartman's value-calculus, which includes the Algebra of Value. It turns out, after plugging in values for all the variables, and seeing the resultant figures, that the over-all amount of value that comes out - after we "turn the crank", so to speak - is a tiny fraction of value close to zero ...IF those whose home-owners who were scheduled to be flooded out were not given sufficient notice to permit them to move, given equally nice homes in a pleasant locale, and with all moving expenses paid. The evacuees must give some sort of permission for the project, even though the move is likely not entirely voluntary.

How to do the calculations was explained in R. S. Hartman, THE STRUCTURE OF VALUE, (1967), which is available in many good university libraries - at least here in the U.S.A. It is a classic, and is now out of print. What it amounts to is E-to-the-E power could represent 'building the hydroelectric plant; all that raised to the I-to-the-I-power (to designate approval, worthwhile, respect); but then raised to the minus-I-power (to depict the anguish of those whose homes are flooded out.) Raising a quantity to a negative flips it over into a fraction - in this case a very, very tiny one.

What the calculus tells us is that suffering is to be rendered as a negative exponent; and of course we really didn't need to do a calculation since Ethics tells us to minimize suffering [and to maximize quality of life.] It is, prima facie, immoral to deliberately flood anyone's home (without permission.) N'est pas?

[Arising_uk]

... It is, prima facie, immoral to deliberately flood anyone's home (without permission.) N'est pas?

Sure I get it, so if a person doesn't want to move we'll force them anyway as they only have a low negative value. But heres the rub, how are you going to weigh these values? As one person may say that the negative impact is huge upon them.

[prof]

... It is, prima facie, immoral to deliberately flood anyone's home (without permission.) N'est pas?

Sure I get it, so if a person doesn't want to move we'll force them anyway as they only have a low negative value. ...

No, Arising, you DON'T GET IT.

Never would I claim that a person has "a low negative value." To say otherwise about what I wrote shows a gross misreading .

It was the hypothetical situation that you brought up that I was analyzing. I said it had a low value.

If you are unfamiliar with the algebraic Laws of Exponents, then please don't fool around with the Calculus.

The Ethical perspective arises when an individual is viewed as an Intrinsic Value, i.e., as one having an indefinitely-high value, so high that it is uncountable. This is because the valuer and what s/he is valuing form a continuum, when one Intrinsically values. It is a diversity within a unity. The valuer gives what is being valued his/her total attention. [The one that is being valued is radiating properties that have to be grasped as a Gestalt.]

This observation (noted in the first sentence) is nothing personal. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

[Arising_uk]

No, Arising, you DON'T GET IT.

Probably, as I find these attempts to create a calculi of ethics and morals a fair waste of time. However, I've read a bunch of them and yours seems to be a variation of Utilitarianism so I await your elucidation to enlighten my ignorance.

Never would I claim that a person has "a low negative value." To say otherwise about what I wrote shows a gross misreading .

Fair enough. What did I misunderstand about the "negative" in your analysis?

It was the hypothetical situation that you brought up that I was analyzing. I said it had a low value.

Sorry, being stupid again, which bit had low value?

If you are unfamiliar with the algebraic Laws of Exponents, then please don't fool around with the Calculus.

Fear not, I won't go near it.

The Ethical perspective arises when an individual is viewed as an Intrinsic Value, i.e., as one having an indefinitely-high value, so high that it is uncountable. This is because the valuer and what s/he is valuing form a continuum, when one Intrinsically values. It is a diversity within a unity. The valuer gives what is being valued his/her total attention. [The one that is being valued is radiating properties that have to be grasped as a Gestalt.]

Well, this all sounds nice but if its uncountable what place it in a calculi?

This observation (noted in the first sentence) is nothing personal. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

Whoosh! Over my head.

[Tesla]

If you examine your post closely, there is an easier way to express what was discovered: "Good is an opinion" because of its relative nature to individual.

[Hjarloprillar]

I studied this. Well formed an opinion.
Because of the 'good man' hypotheses.

If a man is fundamentally good.
Does he go to heaven?

My evangelist siter said no.. If you do not accept christ.As your savior. you go to hell.
Rules rules rules.

Its like.. only moslems can be terrorists.. But look at Oklahama. Or the Tamil Tigers. [elam]
red faction. and all the simply nutty. Most bombs explode not for Allah.. But stupidity.

[james1951]

You cannot judge the goodness of anything by abstracting it from the whole of the world. Things are good because of their relations to the rest of the world, not for the fulfilment of any given set of requirements.

I disagree....

the individual knows from his own personal experience what is good.

it is when we try to justify doing to others that which we would not want another to do to us, that we forsake goodness in favor of that which is not good and condemning ourselves to the neurosis caused by denial and projection and the like.

[james1951]

Perhaps "is good" is simply another way of saying "I approve of it".

Is it possible to say: It is good but I do not approve of it.

Or: I approve of it but it is not good.
Or: I approve of it but it is bad.

I approve of it when I do it to you but I disapprove of it when you do it to me?

[james1951]

If you're evil it is ^^

But no, good is not just another way of saying approve of. Approval is approval, good is good. People can approve of things which are not necessarily good, because in their world evil may be a necessity. An example of this are the people who thinks Hiroshima was necessary, they know they killed thousands of women and children and damaged generations of populations, but in their eyes it's "them or us", therefore they approve of it, but it was never a question of it being a good deed, because of course by most moral standards it was an horrific and cruel act, but, because in their eyes evil may sometimes be necessary, this was to them a "necessity", and so they approved.

necessary? or convenient? victims? or collateral damage? are the recent slaughtering of Palestinian and Afghani and Iraqi babies by Israeli and American soldiers necessary? or just pure evil by the most ruthless nations on this planet

[The Voice of Time]

necessary? or convenient? victims? or collateral damage? are the recent slaughtering of Palestinian and Afghani and Iraqi babies by Israeli and American soldiers necessary? or just pure evil by the most ruthless nations on this planet

That was not part of the point, and discussing it would only set the thread astray. I dislike killings or harming anyone like most people, but the point remains that for some people it is (seen as, from their perspective) necessary to kill sometimes, for whatever reason they have. I personally have always thought that Americans and Israeli soldiers are cowards and disgrace to humanity that would rather shell a civilian neighbourhood than invade by foot and vehicle where they can find their targets and leave the helpless and poor unharmed, but, as stated, it isn't part of this discussion, you would at least, I guess, support the statement that people have differing perspectives, and hopefully in extension, you would support my statement that to some people they can approve of things without the things having, in their eyes, to be good.

[The Voice of Time]

You cannot judge the goodness of anything by abstracting it from the whole of the world. Things are good because of their relations to the rest of the world, not for the fulfilment of any given set of requirements.

I disagree....

the individual knows from his own personal experience what is good.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean the individual is right. I can think of many examples of people having screwed up opinions of what is good. A nice general example is one persons confidence versus another persons doubts. They may have access to the same information, like a lottery where you both know the same odds, but one person knows by intuition that when you have little money you spend it on essential food instead of risking it in a bet, while the other knows by big luck in the past that he should take a chance however small instead of accepting doing nothing but conserve what little he has. I think in the given case that the guy who bets the lottery is just gonna fail and cause misery to himself, in other words the world's biggest idiot, but to him, his desperation to get out of the situation is sufficient for him to waste his essentials for near zero chance of a lot more.

it is when we try to justify doing to others that which we would not want another to do to us, that we forsake goodness in favor of that which is not good and condemning ourselves to the neurosis caused by denial and projection and the like.

That is religious gibberish. I can think of a lot of things also that I do not want to happen to me but which I want to happen to others, for instance I'd like to see my cancered sister treated with cell poison because it might save her, but I very much would never like to take cell poison myself. And if you come here and tell me then that if I were to have cancer, would I take cell poison? If no other better alternative, then yes, but then you have already been in the situation of denial, because you've invented conditions by which there should be mutuality, and by inventing that you suddenly get things like only those who afford food deserve it, because the condition of having enough money and will to spend it is a condition for getting food. Or should we both have food irrespective of our situations?

Don't try to ignore the big fact here, which is that doing things to others which you want others to do to you only works if you are completely the same, and because people are not the same but differ in good as well as bad ways, we must treat each other not by indiscriminate principles, but by paying attention to human needs and the fact that our needs differ as we differ.

[duszek]

Perhaps "is good" is simply another way of saying "I approve of it".

Is it possible to say: It is good but I do not approve of it.

Or: I approve of it but it is not good.
Or: I approve of it but it is bad.

I approve of it when I do it to you but I disapprove of it when you do it to me?

I guess you mean the problem of double standards.

But it depends how you formulate the universal law. You can include in the formulation of this law some essential difference between two people and so "it" is not the same when done to one person or the other.

You could forumulate it either as you do or:

It is good when I do it to you but it is bad when you do it to me.

My equations:

good = I approve of
bad = I disapprove of

are not challenged by this.

Or do I miss something, James ?