Philosophy Now Forum

In providing scientific definition of good and bad, it seems that bio-values are a more scientific account than that of the OP, one that even Sam Harris can approve of. That is, lower bio-values suggest wrongful action and steady or higher (or simply high) bio-values suggest rightful action.

There's a slight, little normative to it such as "Act so that your bio-value remains at current level or even gains a higher value".

A sadist will (I'm told) feel good inflicting pain. Does that prove that pain is good?

A better scientific basis for good and evil is: Good is what helps an agent to flourish, prosper, or thrive (these seem like they are nearly synonyms). Evil is the opposite.

I've never felt a sadist...

-Imp

I didn't read your opening post but only read the topic and am responding to that:
A scientific definition of good and bad cannot exist regarding people and animal life but can only exist regarding things because good and bad have to do with conscience as regards people and animal life and conscience determines the right and wrong. In things, science can portray a scientific definition of good and bad, for example: that tool is good, this one is bad, and so and so are the reasons. When we say everything, yes we are also included so someone might say that since we are also things then why not a scientific definition, the reason is that we are things having consciousness and so conscience will decide.

prof wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:18 pm So, my friend, are you denying the truth of the conclusions of George Edward Moore as explained in his book, PRINCIPIA ETHICA -- and thus refuting the Naturalistic Fallacy?

I would suggest you are not. Moore shows the weakness in your argument. Your definition of "good" is full of holes. Sorry!

Are you suggesting that the Pricipia Ethica is a logical masterpiece, completely without any holes? It is a principle of argumentation that logic is not always useful precisely because it does not cover all topics. The proof, no matter how strong, always proves to be too weak to cover such a broad topic as ethics. The closest that I can get to an explanation (not a proof) of ethical reality is that life really sucks if you expect people to be good without any persuasion. That means that you must be evil enough to maintain the good of others. Goodness is not in our nature. Evil is. You cannot survive without using something or someone else, so that tendency to be "good" has vanished from the genome. We are only good when we are made to be.

Doing something without gain, or even with risking your own safety to do it, is the scientific definition of good and bad.

Even a cat playing with its prey has a purpose.
Altruism and antisocial behavior in humans does not, but the pure pleasure of the individual experience itself. So when you degrade an ex-lover or pay to charity - anonymously, you are scientificly certified bad or good.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:10 pm Doing something without gain, or even with risking your own safety to do it, is the scientific definition of good and bad.

Even a cat playing with its prey has a purpose.
Altruism and antisocial behavior in humans does not, but the pure pleasure of the individual experience itself. So when you degrade an ex-lover or pay to charity - anonymously, you are scientificly certified bad or good.

AGREED!

And how many humans are scientifically speaking good? Virtually none, less than 1 % of the entire human specie.

The Stanford Prison Experiment and The Milgram Experiment is clear evidence that humans are fundamentally evil.

Most people like to be evil. Most people must be psychopaths, this is scientifically proven, see the Stanford & Milgram experiments.