"Good" within Moral Philosophy

[Veritas Aequitas]

The term "good" had been and is still a very battered-punching-bag within moral philosophy.

From AI [wR]
....................
AI Wrote:
Attacks on the Term "Good" in Morality and Meta-Ethics
The term "good" is a cornerstone of moral discourse, yet it has been subjected to various philosophical attacks and challenges. Here are some of the primary objections:

1. Subjectivism:
Claim: Moral judgments are merely expressions of personal opinion or preference. There is no objective standard of goodness.
Criticism: This view can lead to moral relativism, making it difficult to justify moral claims or resolve moral disagreements.

2. Emotivism:
Claim: Moral judgments are primarily emotional expressions, conveying feelings of approval or disapproval.
Criticism: This view suggests that moral reasoning is largely irrational and based on emotions rather than objective facts.

3. Error Theory:
Claim: Moral judgments are based on a fundamental error or misunderstanding. There are no moral facts, and moral language is meaningless.
Criticism: This view can lead to moral nihilism, denying the existence of moral truth or obligation.

4. Open Question Argument:
Claim: Any attempt to define "good" in naturalistic terms (e.g., as pleasure, happiness, or conformity to natural laws) will always leave open the question of whether the defined property is truly good.
Criticism: This argument suggests that moral properties are non-naturalistic and irreducible to natural properties.

5. The Euthyphro Dilemma:
Claim: This dilemma asks whether good actions are good because they are loved by God, or whether God loves them because they are good.
Criticism: This dilemma challenges the idea that morality is grounded in divine commands or divine nature.

6. Cultural Relativism:
Claim: Moral beliefs and practices vary across cultures, suggesting that there is no universal standard of goodness.
Criticism: This view can lead to difficulties in justifying moral judgments and addressing moral conflicts between different cultures.

7. Moral Relativism
Moral relativists argue that there is no universal standard of goodness, and that moral judgments are relative to cultural or individual perspectives. This challenges the idea that there is a single, objective "good" that can be applied to all situations.

8. Moral Nihilism
Moral nihilists contend that there are no moral facts or truths, and that moral judgments are merely expressions of personal opinions or emotions. This view denies the existence of any objective foundation for the term "good."

9. The Is-Ought Gap
David Hume argued that it is impossible to derive ought statements (moral judgments) from is statements (factual claims). This suggests that there is a fundamental difference between factual truths and moral values, and that the term "good" cannot be reduced to a purely factual concept.

These attacks on the term "good" have led to a variety of metaethical theories, including moral realism, moral anti-realism, and moral skepticism. Each of these theories offers a different approach to understanding the nature and status of moral judgments and the concept of "good."
Each of these objections has been debated and discussed extensively, and there is no consensus among philosophers about the correct answer.
....................

VA: What I am saying the term 'good' is too loose a word for use within morality, i.e. "one man's meat and another man's poison."
When Hitler stated the genocide of the Jews is good relative to Nazism, how do we counter that and justify our views genocide is not good?
We need justified objective moral facts to counter that.

I believe for the purpose of morality and ethics, it is not necessary to focus on the definition 'good' with details rather.
If one need to define 'good' with reference to morality & Ethics, then 'good' is the opposite of evil.
If we strive to get rid of genocide [an evil], and achieve zero genocide [or a reduction], that consequence will be good, i.e. it is good there is no genocide.
If we can bring chattel slavery to ZERO as moral target, then, it is good that slavery is ZERO.
Whatever defined as good for anyone is secondary.

When we have an exhaustive list of what is evil [=list of not-good] as defined, there is no room for evil to be good at all.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[FlashDangerpants]

When we have an exhaustive list of what is evil

Impossible.

[Peter Holmes]

When we have an exhaustive list of what is evil

Impossible.

As is an exhaustive list of what is good. Always the same failure to recognise the unentailed moral premise.

[FlashDangerpants]

When we have an exhaustive list of what is evil

Impossible.

As is an exhaustive list of what is good. Always the same failure to recognise the unentailed moral premise.

VA has form for claiming that comprehensive lists of impossible things can be easily created. He thinks a list of all the belief systems ever would enable his "credibility" thing, but when asked for that list he will direct you to Wikipedia and tell you to compile it for him. A list of all the things which are bad, is only something he wants because he wishes to autistically sort it into order, that being the superpower to arrange truths for all time that he thinks he holds.

[Veritas Aequitas]

When we have an exhaustive list of what is evil

Impossible.

As is an exhaustive list of what is good. Always the same failure to recognise the unentailed moral premise.

I want to emphasize 'exhaustive' but not the extent of 100% complete or perfection because there is no such thing in reality [merely a language game] but it generally means;

• exhaustive: If you describe a study, search, or list as exhaustive, you mean that it is very thorough and complete.
  https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/di ... exhaustive

So the list by default of rationality and practicality is still open-ended with very unlikely possibility of adding anything significant to the 'exhausted' list.

[FlashDangerpants]

Impossible.

As is an exhaustive list of what is good. Always the same failure to recognise the unentailed moral premise.

I want to emphasize 'exhaustive' but not the extent of 100% complete or perfection

Inadequate