Goodness

[Ollie.ha]

Have you ever been asked “what’s good”?
Next time I get asked this I want a legitimate answer.

So, “what’s good”

[Impenitent]

Johnny

-Imp

[Walker]

So, “what’s good”

When Debbie Downer beams up.

[phyllo]

Have you ever been asked “what’s good”?
Next time I get asked this I want a legitimate answer.

So, “what’s good”

That's a good question.

[MikeNovack]

But maybe, in practice, what we need is the relation "better than" as in "A is better than B". This might be sufficient to our needs and let us duck difficult issues around the good/best. Those issues clearer once we start with"better than"

IS there a "best"? Is there some A such that there exists no B better than A?
If there is, does now mean always? If A is the best NOW, after you have lots of A or had a for a long time, is it necessarily still the best.

[phyllo]

Same issue.

What makes one thing better than another?

[Impenitent]

Same issue.

What makes one thing better than another?

talent

-Imp

[phyllo]

Talent for mischief

[Ollie.ha]

I guess it would be better to ask “what’s bad” and then use that to know what isn’t… that way we don’t run into the problem of things being “better” but not “perfect”

[phyllo]

Same difference

[FlashDangerpants]

Next time I get asked this I want a legitimate answer.

You've already given up on that then? You just want to assemble a convenient list of things you don't like forever until you run out of stuff that makes you feel a bit squidgy, and then you never had to address the issue of "what is good" directly ... It seems to me like that approach deserves to be on the list of suboptimal things.



A legitimate answer to "what's good" should surely explain how to find out what is good. A goodness (or badness) test of some sort, a measurement. Something like that.

If the answer is "legitimate", is it supposed to just be your personal opinion of what's good right at this moment that you are thinking about it. Or is it supposed to be legit to the extent that if you say something is good, and I say that same thing is bad, then one of us is mistaken and there is some way to know which of us that is?

[MikeNovack]

Same issue.

What makes one thing better than another?

Not really. Sorry, but I was addressing an issue with the usual way philosophers have been answering. An "In practice" issue. So let's look at a typical (traditional answer.

Start with Epicurus, who said something like "good is that which causes the most happiness for the greatest number". IN PRACTICE can we use this? Does it help us identify "that"?

But expressed as a relation, "A is better than B if A causes more happiness for the greatest number"we have some hope of deciding the answer as the relation is always between two things, A and B. We don't have to identify A or B, given to us. It also makes clear the issue with the standard approach. The limit of the relation "better than" is "best". We would say "C is best" if/f "there exists no X such that X is better than C". But does that help us identify C? Have we any guarantee there is a unique C or that C might not change over time (too much of something or something for too long might no longer make you as happy)

[FlashDangerpants]

Start with Epicurus, who said something like "good is that which causes the most happiness for the greatest number".

That's not Epicurus, it's Jeremy Bentham. Epicurianism, while hedonistic, is much more like Buddhism with all that stuff about avoiding anxiety caused by wanting things, and is concerned with what you can do in your own life not what can be done at a society wide level.

But expressed as a relation, "A is better than B if A causes more happiness for the greatest number"we have some hope of deciding the answer as the relation is always between two things, A and B. We don't have to identify A or B, given to us. It also makes clear the issue with the standard approach. The limit of the relation "better than" is "best". We would say "C is best" if/f "there exists no X such that X is better than C". But does that help us identify C? Have we any guarantee there is a unique C or that C might not change over time (too much of something or something for too long might no longer make you as happy)

That just leaves phyllo's question dangling. He asked what makes one thing better than another. You are answering with a hedonic assumption that pleasure or something must be good, but not an explanation for why that thing is good. What we naturally want, and what is actually metaphysically "good" aren't necessarily related.

[MikeNovack]

Good grief --- I was NOT proposing an answer. I clearly said an example answer, then proceeded to why better thought of in terms of a relation.You could substitute any other traditional answer.

[phyllo]

You substituted "happiness" for "good", without explaining why it is good.

And certainly you could do the same for any number of things ... love, power, wealth, knowledge ...