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

[Arising_uk]

That's faulty thinking. Science and technology has and will continue to be left and built upon regardless. But for all the science, the species as a whole is choosing to be wasteful and use polluting energies for the sake of profit, when clearly with the billions in profit; there could be less profit, more wealth distribution, and clean energy. ...

I'm not sure that its true that Science and Technology proceeds that way. Its not been some unbroken line that proceeds regardless.

I don't think there is this 'species' voice you talk about.

I agree there could be these things but what do you mean by 'clean' energy, as we'd have to downsize a lot in just using renewables, which would be more than matched by the increase in the rest of the world being raised from their energy consumption levels.

The problem is not that we do not have the science. The problem is the goal. The goal is profit for corporations, not profit for populations or the upwards species evolution.

Then you're thinking Politics and need to come up with something that the rest of the world will accept, as currently they're going hell for leather for our current one. And I don't think all this 'species' stuff will cut it as such humanist thoughts are mainly for those who do not need to struggle as hard.

That is why I keep asking people "what is most important?" because with all my wisdom, species evolution is more important than living high and destroying the planet and the species. A repeat of history’s greatest past societies, which with no ability to plan, or faulty planning, have all become archeological mysteries.

All plans are faulty when in actual contact. Those cultures just ran into something bigger than them, it'll happen to all I guess. We won't destroy the planet and there will be new species, its how we got here. What we might do is make it uninhabitable to us and our fellow animals. What is most important to people is well explained by Maslow's pyramid I think, so how do you think the rebalancing should take place? As currently there is the start of a great rebalancing of resources as theres two and a half billion people going for mobiles, our technologies and a much higher energy consumption need. Maybe Capitalism will move them up quicker than any other system. Catch 22 I accept but who's going to tell them not to?

How the species evolves is largely in our hands. What we eat, what we teach, what we build, and what we destroy.

I think this could be case but we'll need some better reasons for many to defer from what we've shown them to be an easier life.

I do not particularly care for terms like selfishness, or stupidity, I prefer to speak in terms of what is wise. We can all be foolish. But we can all choose the wiser path; if we can determine it. Is a selfish person wise or foolish? Time tells the tale. But in the world events, in which we all effect each other: even the wiser will eat the bread of the foolish if the foolish choice is the decision made.

I admire this sentiment.

[SpheresOfBalance]

"and how you behave as a body moving about and doing things"
hahahahaa
your a sick boy.

I did not mean anything dirty or sexual. I meant that what we see when we see each other are bodies, and those bodies do things, whatever it is, pick up items or run or take up space or occupy facilities etc. Although we interact a lot with minds, we interact even more with bodies and their influences on situations and environments, and when I say we love bodies I'm not referring to sexuality, but to how the compositions and uses of bodies in everyday-life is to hindrance or betterment of us, to delight or to bother. Weight, smell, size, normality-versus-abnormality, healthiness, and so on... are not just, or even have to be, sexual qualities, but has a lot to say for the atmosphere in our day-to-day following our own requirements and preferences. Even if I don't want to have sex with every woman I meet, I would love for them all to smell good still, as an example.

I knew what you meant. Some people are either thick, or like to play the game of dishonesty. You know the ones, that often reference baiting/goading, they also often attack with ideas that majority have not yet come to terms with, like homo, fag, gay, fairy, dyke, lesbian, etc. Case in point! These people are liars, and cowards, afraid of being real, afraid of admitting their vulnerabilities. I would say that across the board, you seem to be extremely open and unafraid of honesty. You also articulate rather well, and offer fresh opposing views. You are a refreshing addition to this moldy crowd!

There are books that can be bought about a subject known as "Body Language." Yes I knew exactly to what you were referring, as an astute observer, I'm pretty well versed in body language.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Remember what TVoT said about his mother, no wonder he cannot see children as we do, as his mother apparently did not. Once he has children, if ever, he may either be like his mother and still not see it, or he may be able to construct the idea, of what he missed in his mother, and apply it to his relationship with his children. But at this point remember that he has never witnessed it first hand, or so it would seem, from what he's said.

Who are you answering in this one?

Just calling attention to the fact of your previous words, as to your mother's and your relationship, which probably precludes your ability to hypothetically see the future through your child's eyes. So it was meant for all those that argued against you, as to this concept. I see that they were not understanding the implications of your words clearly.

[The Voice of Time]

OK SoB.

[Hjarloprillar]

Who decides what criteria a car should fulfill?
---------------------------------------------

Thats the 'gist' of it
A>b
off road
safety
looks
representation of wealth
pussy pulling power ie a white mirror magged '75 vette [im shoppingfor one]

man is so stupid , so much potential wasted or turned to corporate desire

ooops corporate is dirty word.

[reasonvemotion]

pussy pulling power ie a white mirror magged '75 vette [im shoppingfor one]

Have you thought about the cost of spare parts.

[NielsBohr]

Many serious students of Ethics and Morality have wondered: When (and how) is something (or someone) “good”?

We call a situation good if it fulfills a purpose. We call a thing good if it exemplifies (the meaning of) its concept. [The assumption here is that each item falls under a concept. This is reasonable to assume.]

“Good” in general is too vague. If I just utter the word “good” without being specific, then “good” could mean anything - it could be a thoughtless expression, an emotional attitude, an assent, equivalent to “yes.”

When”good” is applied to an individual, who plays a role, such, for example, janitor, clerk, parent, postman, tailor, waitress, etc., then a good one is one who does his/her duty, one who fulfills the requirements of the job.

A “good action” is an action that (Systemically) proceeds from sound reasons; (Extrinsically) has outcomes that meet with approval and gets something worthwhile done; (Intrinsically) shows respect for others and reflects living out one’s principled beliefs on the part of the one performing the action. It it meets those three criteria, we are justified in speaking of it as “a good action.”

Hi Prof,

I am happy about your systemical, extrinsical, and intrinsical explanations; especially about the last one, which in the occurrence, avoid to bring back some notions of good actions as being some checks to get the Heaven.

In french, we have to expressions for "good", knowing: "bon" and "bien".

The first generally is a connotation for something as a taste.
The second is generally a judgement from someone else.

Although, I see in the second a "bad" meaning. In this way, if belief has its place in ethics, I remember the original sinn as being the discover of a knowledge, but not anything; the knowledge of (what is) good and bad.

Expressed in french, this meaning is translated as "bien".

In the contrary, when God created the world, He assumed this as being "bon".

Sorry if you think that I am according too much importance to the letter - this is generally not the case - but in find these considerations as very important, by the way that "bien" understand only a (partial or) humain consideration, meanwhile "bon" benefit of a more general acceptation.

Under the acceptation of the idea that religion could have some traditional impact, but also lightened by the concept of Tao, I consider for myself that "good-as-"bien"" is only the counterpart of bad, what means that in this acceptation, good would only become to let place to the bad, or at least, that our own good principles can absolutely be the bad ones in the referential of the others.

Meanwhile, "good-as-"bon"" would have a (more general) meaning in the referential of God, Who can, after all, be in the term "good" itself...


But as our referential is more the humain one, I finally do not accord much importance of what is good. What is dominant seems to be the law. Althoug, I am aware that our concept of "good" could (or shall) allow, or disallow, the future evolutions of the law.

This last point probably overtake (only ?) my person, and probably some others, knowing that the international law is after all not of all the countries (we see examples every days).