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

[The Voice of Time]

You said you were a gamer, honestly, what video games have you played? Please list them in order from most favorite to least.

It's a difficult choice. You usually play a video game until you're dead tired of it. And if you grow dead tired of every game, how can anyone last to be a favourite?

But in order of most liked being highest up:

1) Civilization series (played 4 and 5, still into 5. Game about leading civilization from beginnings to the end, with possible victory through various ways like cultural domination, military domination, being first into space, getting everybody to vote for you in diplomacy, etc.)
2) Rome: Total War (mix of map-based strategy and real-time army-directing battlefields. Though I mostly skipped battlefields and just did random roll, unless I had bad odds and needed to enter the battlefield in order to use my own possible skills to increase chance of success)
3) Tropico series (played 3 and 4, still into 4. Game about playing a Dictator governing a Caribbean fictional banana republic called "Tropico", with your title of El Presidente. The game is mostly humorous, and although it's made in such a way you have a variety of repressive tools at your command, including shooting striking workers etc., I usually aim to achieve a kind of utopian state with no police force, a very strong economy with strong health care services, entertainment and so forth, and a generous attitude. But still, of course, I refuse to leave office, because either dying or leaving office (by force of others) is the only two conditions for loosing)
4) Battlefield 2
5) Age of Conan ("the most savage, sexy, and brutal massive multi-player online game ever!", official slogan. I played Herald of Xotli, which was a guy who transformed into a demon and used a big sword and close combat fire magic. He very much liked chopping off people's arms and burning them alive. And of course my favourite: ripping out other people's hearts while they were alive. All in some of the if not the most advanced high-quality graphics and resolutions in the industry at the time of its release in 2008)
6) don't know any more... I've played Nordic Mafia (quite brutal game, even had an own "Russian Roulette" function where advanced players could risk killing themselves by taking part in real Russian Roulette, (you always died permanently) for the possible gain of a lot of money (unless you were really big, then it would only be spare change). Stopped playing it when an asshole guessed my password and ruined my account for sadistic fun), World of Warcraft (for quite some time when I was younger, stopped playing at the age of 15 though, 5 years ago, and never actually reached max-level on my own, the repetitive nature of the game tired me awfully), RuneScape, Travian (play it actively now, I'm the Strategic Commander of my alliance), Rayman Gold (quite fun when I was young, these days not stimulative enough) and Tekken series (also when I was young. I like similar games these days also, but only I think if I play against people I know. NPCs are not so fun to play against anymore).

[SpheresOfBalance]

You said you were a gamer, honestly, what video games have you played? Please list them in order from most favorite to least.

It's a difficult choice. You usually play a video game until you're dead tired of it. And if you grow dead tired of every game, how can anyone last to be a favourite?

But in order of most liked being highest up:

1) Civilization series (played 4 and 5, still into 5. Game about leading civilization from beginnings to the end, with possible victory through various ways like cultural domination, military domination, being first into space, getting everybody to vote for you in diplomacy, etc.)
2) Rome: Total War (mix of map-based strategy and real-time army-directing battlefields. Though I mostly skipped battlefields and just did random roll, unless I had bad odds and needed to enter the battlefield in order to use my own possible skills to increase chance of success)
3) Tropico series (played 3 and 4, still into 4. Game about playing a Dictator governing a Caribbean fictional banana republic called "Tropico", with your title of El Presidente. The game is mostly humorous, and although it's made in such a way you have a variety of repressive tools at your command, including shooting striking workers etc., I usually aim to achieve a kind of utopian state with no police force, a very strong economy with strong health care services, entertainment and so forth, and a generous attitude. But still, of course, I refuse to leave office, because either dying or leaving office (by force of others) is the only two conditions for loosing)
4) Battlefield 2
5) Age of Conan ("the most savage, sexy, and brutal massive multi-player online game ever!", official slogan. I played Herald of Xotli, which was a guy who transformed into a demon and used a big sword and close combat fire magic. He very much liked chopping off people's arms and burning them alive. And of course my favourite: ripping out other people's hearts while they were alive. All in some of the if not the most advanced high-quality graphics and resolutions in the industry at the time of its release in 2008)
6) don't know any more... I've played Nordic Mafia (quite brutal game, even had an own "Russian Roulette" function where advanced players could risk killing themselves by taking part in real Russian Roulette, (you always died permanently) for the possible gain of a lot of money (unless you were really big, then it would only be spare change). Stopped playing it when an asshole guessed my password and ruined my account for sadistic fun), World of Warcraft (for quite some time when I was younger, stopped playing at the age of 15 though, 5 years ago, and never actually reached max-level on my own, the repetitive nature of the game tired me awfully), RuneScape, Travian (play it actively now, I'm the Strategic Commander of my alliance), Rayman Gold (quite fun when I was young, these days not stimulative enough) and Tekken series (also when I was young. I like similar games these days also, but only I think if I play against people I know. NPCs are not so fun to play against anymore).

Played any first person shooters? I'm afraid that killing is not a game. In life there are no reset buttons. I believe that you can try and rationalize it for the sake of argument all you want, but in the end it is not informed and is merely a product of your lack of experience.

Also remember that I made a distinction between Intellectual and emotional. And said as much, that I agreed with you, intellectually, but emotionally I know myself, and it's quite different. This is where the psychological phrase "temporary insanity" comes from. You simply have not had enough time to meet your emotional self, under these conditions, that we are talking about. Long ago, one sound argument that I heard, was that it's almost impossible for one to judge how they 'might' react under extreme threat, potentially yielding either emotional or physical trauma. And this is in fact true, some freeze, some run, and some become killing machines.

Thanks for being honest. At this point I don't believe I need go any further, you have made my case.

[Tesla]

Well, Tesla, I can't really fathom how you can live with importance having anything to do with opinion, .

Really? Do you want to rethink that statement or should I just conclude you represent a very small portion of society? You use a lot of big words. You throw out tons of martyred complexity, but yet you still cannot answer one simple question?

What is most important to you?

[Tesla]

Importance from the perspective of what/whom/when?

Since every individual perspective differs per individual, I'm asking your perspective. One can pretend to know other perspectives, but subjectivity is never erased, therefore even with empathy you can only offer your own evaluation.

So what is 'most important' in life to you?

When I said this:

Importance from the perspective of what/whom/when?

I was specifically addressing this:

We need to first establish a value that is most important. I'd like to suggest that 'Good' can only be defined by levels of importance.

I was wondering who this "we" is? All of humanity? Anything less and I see...

Sorry I wasn't more clear, the first time.

Ok that's fair. Let’s examine Good next to as I have proposed: the most important thing, as I say, good can only be a measure of. Pick a most important thing, and then let’s examine how good is defined in light of it.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Importance from the perspective of what/whom/when?

Since every individual perspective differs per individual, I'm asking your perspective. One can pretend to know other perspectives, but subjectivity is never erased, therefore even with empathy you can only offer your own evaluation.

So what is 'most important' in life to you?

When I said this:

Importance from the perspective of what/whom/when?

I was specifically addressing this:

We need to first establish a value that is most important. I'd like to suggest that 'Good' can only be defined by levels of importance.

I was wondering who this "we" is? All of humanity? Anything less and I see...

Sorry I wasn't more clear, the first time.

Ok that's fair. Let’s examine Good next to as I have proposed: the most important thing, as I say, good can only be a measure of. Pick a most important thing, and then let’s examine how good is defined in light of it.

The problem I have, is that I see Good quite differently. I define good as, that which benefits, any particular entity, in question. Such that bad is exactly the opposite, and is anything, that does not benefit, any particular entity, in question. This then, allows for differing interests. I see that this view combined with my version of "The Golden Rule" which I call: The "Fundamental Social Axiom: Treat others as you would have others treat you, to the extent, that all parties knowingly agree at the time," is all we need to ensure all experience good, amongst one another.

[Tesla]

The problem I have, is that I see Good quite differently. I define good as, that which benefits, any particular entity, in question. Such that bad is exactly the opposite, and is anything, that does not benefit, any particular entity, in question. This then, allows for differing interests. I see that this view combined with my version of "The Golden Rule" which I call: The "Fundamental Social Axiom: Treat others as you would have others treat you, to the extent, that all parties knowingly agree at the time," is all we need to ensure all experience good, amongst one another.

ok...that's...new.

" I define good as, that which benefits, any particular entity, in question."
It is beneficial for one to kill his ex-wife, and therefore have time with his child. and save child support costs...but is it 'good'?
it is beneficial for one town in a desert to destroy the other town completely, so as to have all resources in the area...but is it 'good'?

Could you elaborate?

[Hjarloprillar]

.

You said you were a gamer, honestly, what video games have you played? Please list them in order from most favorite to least.[/quote]
-------------------------------------------
I think you refer to me.
I stated i was gamer.
The 'list' is huge and not definable in favourites or no.
Any more than art.
Especially the milsims..Is '67 conflict 'better' than say Leningrad '43 or Crecy?
--------------------------------------------

Or not. Many game.

mmorpg's like age of conan are populated by twits. Who play like they live. In fear and without much thought .
I dont consider many shooters to be games at all. Most are headbox hunting waste of time.
When my neph was young and raved at his prowess in Counterstrike.. I let him fire One round from pump action.
he shat his pants.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.














...............................................................................










.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The problem I have, is that I see Good quite differently. I define good as, that which benefits, any particular entity, in question. Such that bad is exactly the opposite, and is anything, that does not benefit, any particular entity, in question. This then, allows for differing interests. I see that this view combined with my version of "The Golden Rule" which I call: The "Fundamental Social Axiom: Treat others as you would have others treat you, to the extent, that all parties knowingly agree at the time," is all we need to ensure all experience good, amongst one another.

ok...that's...new.

" I define good as, that which benefits, any particular entity, in question."
It is beneficial for one to kill his ex-wife, and therefore have time with his child. and save child support costs...but is it 'good'?
it is beneficial for one town in a desert to destroy the other town completely, so as to have all resources in the area...but is it 'good'?

Could you elaborate?

Do you really believe that the example you cite above fulfills compliance with my Fundamental Social Axiom? Remember, I said that what you quoted must be "combined with" my Fundamental Social Axiom. Actually I see that my Axiom stands alone, but we are specifically talking about "good."

[prof]

Recently, posters have been offering definitions of "good" as if it has not already been rigorously defined in the early pages of: Katz - ETHICS; A COLLEGE COURSE - a glimpse of which proof I gave near the outset of the original post in this thread. What I defined is "x is a good C" meaning I pointed to what x is good for; or good as.
C stands for the specific concept under which x is included. In logic terms, C is the category, or classification, or class of which x is a member. For example, if C is "chalk", then x could be a piece of chalk. "This piece of chalk is good" means that this piece has the properties that describe the concept "chalk." It exemplifies (the meaning of) its concept.

Tesla and Spheres of Balance, have attempted to defines "good" by employing concepts such as "important" or "benefit" - both very vague ideas ...as each noted regarding the other's definition. So what does "benefit" mean? Then we chase around the dictionary, and eventually use the word "good" to explain "benefit." Circular reasoning.

The Hartman definition avoids those problems. It posits that C has certain attributes [property names.] If x has all those features - wherever you want to break off the description - then we are justified in calling x a good one -- as a C. It forces us to be specific; thus avoiding endless (unclear and useless) controversy, the like of which usually occurs in philosophical arguments and discussions. In these discussions the discussants usually 'talk around each other' because they are using slippery, vague concepts. They employ homonyms, in a sense ...with one speaker meaning one thing by the word, and the other arguer meaning something quite different. The word "spring" for example, has maybe a half-dozen distinct meanings; while a word like "socialism" has about 25 meanings.

I believe it would be helpful if you all would re-read the o.p. And then read the other threads I have contributed here at the Ethical Theory Forum. Study them. You will see how Sphere's "axiom" so neatly fits in, at least in a negative version of the Rule, such as: Don't do anything to someone else that you wouldn't want done to you - under similar circumstances.

Even better would be the asking of yourself of The Central Question of Life, namely, What choice can I make, or action can I take, here and now that will produce the greatest value? - with all things considered and for the most folks concerned.

For adding value - creating more value - is what Ethics is all about.

[The Voice of Time]

What is most important to you?

Well my great underlying passion in life is philosophy... possibly also sex. And sometimes together.

I'm not sure I can answer what is important, because it changes from time to time and from mood to mood. When you're starving, then food is your greatest passion, when you feel lonely and needing to be touched, sex might be your greatest passion, and when you are in a state of not having to worry about those two, you might very well find philosophy your greatest passion, thing which is the most important thing for you.

But in terms of thought, it also changes when new information presents itself, so even if I could name a thing which is the most important thing in my life, it might change also as new information presents itself. And things often get contradictory. For instance, I might find out, that my greatest passion: philosophy, doesn't actually make me produce anything and contribute to the happiness and welfare of society, so I might have to adjust my view on that, because I want to contribute and help lift the quality of life of people, in other words: I want to be nice/good in those terms.

But then suddenly I find myself in situations were my ultimate goal of being nice/good no longer seems to align with my immediate goals. For instance I might be really nasty and psychologically/emotionally devastating towards another human being for some reason, either to prove a point which I find, at the time, Important, or maybe to defend myself or maybe I'm waging a war against the person to ensure they are removed from power. In that case it can easily go out of hand and loose the trace of where niceness and goodness went. Thereby, suddenly, my ultimate goal maybe isn't my ultimate goal, the thing which is the most important for me.

Unfortunately, it all easily gets very cloudy once you realize the complexity of the real world.

[The Voice of Time]

For adding value - creating more value - is what Ethics is all about.

Value for whom, is unfortunately, one thing you forgot to add to that sentence.

[The Voice of Time]

Recently, posters have been offering definitions of "good" as if it has not already been rigorously defined

I've already repelled this attempt several times, Prof. Face it: it's a silly definition, however "rigorous" you make it. It is and will always be a shopping list, and it will always fail to portray reality in any real scientific matter, and instead will try to give a limping explanation for reality. One explanation which I personally have a far better answer to, far more sophisticated and capable.

[Tesla]

What choice can I make, or action can I take, here and now that will produce the greatest value?[/color][/b] - with all things considered and for the most folks concerned.

For adding value - creating more value - is what Ethics is all about.

What I'm trying to point out is that greatest value part. What can an individual who desires to do 'good' accomplish with any truth if the greatest value is never the same?

Take a community of Christians, and a community of atheists, who both have a moral desire to do 'good'. They have the same goal, but hurt each other because they have a differing Idea of what has the greatest value. The 'most' important thing.

It’s like global warming. Economy 'now' is more important than 50-75% of the extinction of life in 300 years.

If we want to agree on what is good, we need to agree on what is most important to us, because individuals will decide good to be a lesser of two evils when forced to make a choice: based on what is most important the diverse ideas of what is good stem from how we measure individually, and as a society, against the most important thing

Why can you not see that Prof? Or do you see it and believe all that you have decided on to define good is a finished work? Are you done with wisdom? Examine yourself, and ask yourself, what is the most important thing, then look at how good will be defined differently for those who do not have that same object in mind.

If the species does not cooperate, we are going to destroy a very large part of this planet way before it's time. We will choke on our own feces and waste like overpopulating bacterium. We need to find agreements for solutions. And you are not helping me at all by playing God with your education and ignoring the relevance of what I'm attempting to do here.

[Tesla]

What is most important to you?

Well my great underlying passion in life is philosophy... possibly also sex. And sometimes together.

I'm not sure I can answer what is important, because it changes from time to time and from mood to mood. When you're starving, then food is your greatest passion, when you feel lonely and needing to be touched, sex might be your greatest passion, and when you are in a state of not having to worry about those two, you might very well find philosophy your greatest passion, thing which is the most important thing for you.

But in terms of thought, it also changes when new information presents itself, so even if I could name a thing which is the most important thing in my life, it might change also as new information presents itself. And things often get contradictory. For instance, I might find out, that my greatest passion: philosophy, doesn't actually make me produce anything and contribute to the happiness and welfare of society, so I might have to adjust my view on that, because I want to contribute and help lift the quality of life of people, in other words: I want to be nice/good in those terms.

But then suddenly I find myself in situations were my ultimate goal of being nice/good no longer seems to align with my immediate goals. For instance I might be really nasty and psychologically/emotionally devastating towards another human being for some reason, either to prove a point which I find, at the time, Important, or maybe to defend myself or maybe I'm waging a war against the person to ensure they are removed from power. In that case it can easily go out of hand and loose the trace of where niceness and goodness went. Thereby, suddenly, my ultimate goal maybe isn't my ultimate goal, the thing which is the most important for me.

Unfortunately, it all easily gets very cloudy once you realize the complexity of the real world.

Awesome. Now there is an opportunity to begin examining for the root of the matter. When you die, what will happen? Is there an ultimate goal to your life? A hedge fund so to speak, that you aim to pass on? Heaven or God? Country or family? Community or self?

If what you have said is true, then I must follow a different path of enquiry, because it would appear that self-pleasure is the most important thing, and so anything that would take from self-pleasure becomes the object you will fight for, maybe die for...what would you die for? I believe you have relevantly explained what you live for...