The Question of Good

[Silver Guard]

Good, its quite an elusive word actualy, to do good, to be good, to have good will, to wish good upon others. It is also a vague one, possibly capable of the most different interpretations of any english word.

What is good? Is it the capability to be selfless? Is it the position in which a person finds themselves, or the work to bring such a position to others?

The question of evil is also close, though rather less vague it depends entirely on the given person's morals. For example Hitler was unlikely to believe himself evil, though the majority of the world's population sees him as such, is Bush Evil? Am I evil? After all, I have done my fair share of selfish acts in life. But then again I am nothing in comparison to the most ardent serial killer.

[Last_Crusader]

Good and Evil are purely human things. Because of crosscultural differences, gender differences, and even personal differences in the perception of same, a sweeping defnintion is impossible. The best stab at a defnition was the Augustinian definition of Good and Evil, whereby something Good fitted its purpose and something Bad did not, so a sighted eye was Good and a blind eye was Bad. As God created everything, a murderer was Bad because he defied God's will. But, obviously, this depends on God's existence. Outside of that, I think Good and Evil are fairytales.

[Turbo]

Below are my thoughts on the subject:

Good = doing God's will through actions. Motives mean nothing. You begin your spiritual journey through receiving the Holy Spirit and through prayer and faith through the church can your actions become good works. The work of God is difficult and you slip and fall back and forth between sin and righteousness. No one except Christ was without sin and no one who follows in Christ path does so without sin. The more sin is denied the stronger the craving and compulsion becomes for it.

Evil = Sin by not following God's will.

Morals mean nothing without faith and good works. If you do not act on conviction then there is no true conviction. Good works without faith is action without direction.

[Last_Crusader]

So, there you have it. Augustinian concepts are alive and well.

[Lusted]

Good works without faith is action without direction.

Now i'd disagree with that. For instance, every week i help out my local charity. I do a lot of work for it, which is useful as it is low on volunteers. I volunteer there because i think the chairty is a very good cause. So my good work in volunteering there is directed by my desire to help out an organisation which i think helps alleviate the probelm of poverty for thousands of people around the world. I do not need faith for direction, i have my own moral and ethics to guide my actions. So my actions do have a direction, which is helping an organisation that i think does good in this world.

[rez]

Morals mean nothing without faith and good works.

Actually i would say that morals without faith are doubly powerful.

Considering that morals with faith only exist because a powerful being is ordering you to behave in such a way.

Morals without faith exist purely for the sake of morality

[Turbo]

Now i'd disagree with that. For instance, every week i help out my local charity. I do a lot of work for it, which is useful as it is low on volunteers. I volunteer there because i think the chairty is a very good cause. So my good work in volunteering there is directed by my desire to help out an organisation which i think helps alleviate the probelm of poverty for thousands of people around the world. I do not need faith for direction, i have my own moral and ethics to guide my actions. So my actions do have a direction, which is helping an organisation that i think does good in this world.

There is a difference between socially good and 'good works' described in Christianity. One verse that helps explain this:

Titus 2:14 :Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."

Christian 'good works' are those actions which glorify the Lord and that do the work of God. They can also be socially good things but most important they must be spiritual actions driven by direction through the Holy Spirit.

Actually i would say that morals without faith are doubly powerful.

Considering that morals with faith only exist because a powerful being is ordering you to behave in such a way.

Morals without faith exist purely for the sake of morality

If our discussion stays true to the topic of good works and Christianity, the morality you refer to is a social morality which is dependent on how society views things and on how each person views right and wrong. These morals can not be 'good works' since they are man made and do not serve the Lord.

[Silver Guard]

There is a difference between socially good and 'good works' described in Christianity. One verse that helps explain this:

Titus 2:14 :Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."

Christian 'good works' are those actions which glorify the Lord and that do the work of God. They can also be socially good things but most important they must be spiritual actions driven by direction through the Holy Spirit.

Only according to the bible, and for those of us who would srhug our shoulders and walk on if the worlds supply of bibles was burned, this means nothing. Added to the fact that many of us don't care what a non-existant being thinks of us, this code of morality is useless. Any code which only applies to a small proportion of the population cannot be used as a guideline socialy

If our discussion stays true to the topic of good works and Christianity, the morality you refer to is a social morality which is dependent on how society views things and on how each person views right and wrong. These morals can not be 'good works' since they are man made and do not serve the Lord.

I have never served the lord, not in any shape or form, yet I have done what most would call good deeds, for example drawing a drowning cat from a well. Yes they are what I did, not what God wants neccissarily, but I realy couldn't give a damn.

[rez]

So one Atheist gives his life so another Atheist can live.

You see no merit in that action whatsoever? No morality and goodness in his heart?

If our discussion stays true to the topic of good works and Christianity

the original topic is in fact simple good and evil. Religion was introduced by you.

[Turbo]

So one Atheist gives his life so another Atheist can live.

You see no merit in that action whatsoever? No morality and goodness in his heart?

Maybe some merit in that Atheist's relationship with society and other men, but it is meaningless for his relationship with God. Without the Holy Spirit, this man will not attain salvation.

the original topic is in fact simple good and evil. Religion was introduced by you.

I understand this but you responded to my post.

[rez]

Maybe some merit in that Atheist's relationship with society and other men, but it is meaningless for his relationship with God. Without the Holy Spirit, this man will not attain salvation.

Whether or not the man will be saved is pretty much irrelevant when one considers the simple yes or no question of whether or not he performed an incredibly good act. Its pretty damned hard to say that he did not enact a good deed here.

Is the sacrifice made by this Atheist a lesser act of good than blind obedience to God?

I understand this but you responded to my post.

mea Culpa - BTW i missed you mate, where have you been?

[Turbo]

[QUOTE=rez]Whether or not the man will be saved is pretty much irrelevant when one considers the simple yes or no question of whether or not he performed an incredibly good act. Its pretty damned hard to say that he did not enact a good deed here.

Is the sacrifice made by this Atheist a lesser act of good than blind obedience to God?

It is a noble act to his fellow man but he died a death without salvation. For me as a Christian, more good would have come of his sacrifice if it had been in the service of God.

mea Culpa - BTW i missed you mate, where have you been?

Good to hear from you Rez.

I've been doing missionary work in Argentina and one of our order in the community was ordained a priest at the Basilica of St. Eugene in Rome. I got to meet Bishop Javier Echevarria and be among the diners at a dinner. A great honor to meet such a great holy man!

[Narakir]

Good is a concept to describe positive things. Doing good things is also to totaly sacrifice your egoism and self safted no mather what would be the cost.

People doing good in hope they'll be saved (by god or other things) or get a reward just deguise thier intentions they're infact very egoist and hypocrits, like a lot of belivers from every religions are, not all tought. But this mean you can be Atheist and still more virtuous than a beliver.

Supreme good for me is to accept what your are and always beign honest with yourself no mather wich rules you follow.

[Tostig]

Ah, a matter of meta-ethics, eh? I myself think that there are many meanings, nuances and subtleties to the word good, and so also evil since evil is merely a reflection of what we mean when we say good.
To start with when we say good we mean that we approve of something, that we are expressing our emotions towards it as being positive. "A good pen" is a pen that inspires positive feelings in us, perhaps because we find that it fulfils what we might expect of it, or because it creates a feeling of well being in us.
However there is also a hint of prescribing in this. When we express our approval of something we do so as to influence others. When I saw "St Francis of Assisi is the epitome of goodness" I mean that the idea of St Francis causes me to feel approval, and so the person who I am addressing would do well to try and emulate St Francis. In effect "You ought to be like St Francis of Assisi."

However both of these meanings are just expressions of opinion based on a persons view of the world. They rely entirely upon their experiences, they're subjective, and rightly so. G.E.Moor, my most beloved example of English stoginess, believe good to be a super-natural property which does none the less exist, and I disagree with him entirely. Whether or not one thinks he is making a comparison to a perfect property has no role to play in whether or not that substance actually exists, or is merely an abstract developed from his worldview.


Yes, I'm subjective, nihilist and an adolescent. Don't you just love the cliche?

[avesta]

There is no good or evil. There is only power.

[Lusted]

Christian 'good works' are those actions which glorify the Lord and that do the work of God. They can also be socially good things but most important they must be spiritual actions driven by direction through the Holy Spirit.

Now im talking about good actions in general, not specifically religious ones as i am an atheist. Would you agree that one can do good actions without being a christian, but that chrisitan good works require someone to be motivated by faith.

[Turbo]

Now im talking about good actions in general, not specifically religious ones as i am an atheist. Would you agree that one can do good actions without being a christian, but that chrisitan good works require someone to be motivated by faith.

I agree with you in that regards.

[TheKwas]

The concept of good is a relic of evolution. During the times of caveman family tribalism, the tribes that survived were the tribes that looked out for each other to protect their own DNA. This genetic disposition remains intact after humans overcame evolution. I think it is Dawkin that likes to use allegory of sex and conceptives. Sex has the purpose of passing on one's DNA, so we have a genetic disposition that erges us to have sex. However, if we use conceptives and overcome evolution, we still retain or erging to have sex, just as we still have a concept of good (and an erging to do good) even after it has no evolutionary role.

What 'good' is is whatever allowed those cavemen to survive while others perish.

[avesta]

What 'good' is is whatever allowed those cavemen to survive while others perish.

You have just brought up an absolutely golden point.
Survival of the fittest. In caveman days, the strongest and most intelligent amongst other things, would allow them to survive and pass on their genes. Most important was the gathering of food, which required intelligence and innovation in order to find ways of hunting animals (in different weather and environmental conditions), not to mention physical strength. Second most important, was to retain your loot, as another tribe's alpha male would attempt to forcefully take your food from you.

Another important factor in determining survival was the ability to build shelter, as weather conditions would become threatening to their very existence. Neanderthals for example were physically adapted to cold climates but many archaeologists have argued that cold climates were a disadvantage for survival due to lack of food. Less food = inability to support a higher population and pass down your genes at a rapid rate.

All in all, it appears that luck played a very big role in determing survival due to environmental conditions. Intelligence obviously played a big role as well, as some races were forced to innovate due to their environment. You could argue that intelligence gets developed only when in a position where it needs to be exercised, so it's difficult to make comparisons. Inherent "toughness" was very important as there would always be someone from a different family trying to steal your bread and butter in order to survive so he can pass down his own genes. So according to your theory, the toughest and most intelligent people are the most "good". Sounds about right.

[TheKwas]

You have just brought up an absolutely golden point.
Survival of the fittest. In caveman days, the strongest and most intelligent amongst other things, would allow them to survive and pass on their genes. Most important was the gathering of food, which required intelligence and innovation in order to find ways of hunting animals (in different weather and environmental conditions), not to mention physical strength. Second most important, was to retain your loot, as another tribe's alpha male would attempt to forcefully take your food from you.

Another important factor in determining survival was the ability to build shelter, as weather conditions would become threatening to their very existence. Neanderthals for example were physically adapted to cold climates but many archaeologists have argued that cold climates were a disadvantage for survival due to lack of food. Less food = inability to support a higher population and pass down your genes at a rapid rate.

All in all, it appears that luck played a very big role in determing survival due to environmental conditions. Intelligence obviously played a big role as well, as some races were forced to innovate due to their environment. You could argue that intelligence gets developed only when in a position where it needs to be exercised, so it's difficult to make comparisons. Inherent "toughness" was very important as there would always be someone from a different family trying to steal your bread and butter in order to survive so he can pass down his own genes. So according to your theory, the toughest and most intelligent people are the most "good". Sounds about right.

Although you're not really wrong, the focus of the thread is based more on the relationship between individuals and the focus of 'good' in that regard. What is good or is not good is not based on the intelligence or physical strength of the man attacking me with a knife, but rather based on the act of attacking me with a knife in the first place.

The 'good' that regulates social behavior is a relic of human evolution, which is different from the physical qualities that are left from evolution. The concept of 'Killing is bad' is seemingly inherient in most humans, which could be accounted for by the fact that the groups of humans that survived were the ones that co-operated. In the days of the caveman, the tribes that survived were the tribes that didn't kill each other from within. Protection of their own DNA, sort to speak.

A fundamental aspect of evolution is that DNA has to protect itself, otherwise it will perish. This is why Mothers care for their babies and this is why humans care for other humans (or, more specifically, cavemen cared about their fellow cavemen and they all survived togeather).

It's this 'good', the good of co-operative survival, that regulates human behavior. What exactly makes up this good (socially, not genetically) is nearly impossible to say for sure, but in biological terms it would be whatever secures the future of human DNA.

Good is what is proper in any given condition.

You realize that you just replaced 'good' with 'proper' right?