Comments on Searching for Natural Moral Principles- What is Goodness?

Go to The Golden Rule Needs Some Iron - Add a comment - Go to Searching for Natural Moral Principles- What is Goodness?

Haven't forgotten your last point; will respond after I read your most recent post.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on May 6, 2005 at 6:57 PM | link to this | reply

Another factor- making a difference VS. status quo

Knowledge, learning, health, prosperity-- none of these things are good by themselves, and they can be used for the worst harm or evil. But they are essential to the accomplishment of good. The more we have of them, the more goodness we can do, if we want to. So our intention is key-- what do we INTEND to do with knowledge, learning, health, prosperity? And who knows your true intention but yourself alone?

We are in agreement that basically good=helping and evil=harming. The mandate to "do no harm" falls somewhere in the neutral middle ground. I think that middle ground is where most of us live most of the time, doing no harm but also doing no real help. Just surviving and maintaining a certain status quo in our lives. Interacting with others just enough to maintain a status quo, but not enough to make a difference. This is maddening to me, and I want to motivate others to get out of their status quo and either accomplish significant goodness or stop others from their harmful actions. To make a difference in others' lives, to change the status quo. That is the fruit of goodness.

posted by GoldenMean on May 3, 2005 at 5:15 AM | link to this | reply

I still am planning to post the details I wrote down, but I have been editing my friend's college papers, which because of deadlines poses a more urgent demand.

For now, let me put down that I think your observation, that knowledge itself cannot be good because it can be used for bad, was edifying.  I doubt the notion that learning is good in itself, except to the extent that I enjoy learning and its aesthetic value.  Definitely some people seek knowledge in order to do evil.

I find your notions of good and evil the most well-considered and justified of any that have been suggested; good, helping; evil, harming.  To this we must, however, add "the innocent," for it is obviously bad to help someone to do evil; and it would be good to harm someone to keep him from doing evil (if this were the only way to stop him).

To define innocent, we would have to rely on basic nonmaleficence -- say that a person is innocent if he would not likely use our aid to do bad things.  To avoid circularity, we would have to justify the goodness of a person's being harmless, which we would do by appealing to our core assumption that life, and the enhancement of life (health and prosperity), are good things.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on May 2, 2005 at 12:24 PM | link to this | reply

Yes, it is very encouraging to read thoughtful remarks about Ayn Rand in particular and philosophy in general in a popular culture preoccupied with trivial things. 

I have written down all my comments on the printed paper, and soon (promise!) I will transcribe them into the computer. 

posted by Dyl_Pickle on April 29, 2005 at 11:05 AM | link to this | reply

Dylan

As always, I look forward to your excellent comments and feedback. I am sure you will enjoy the parts of this post about the philosophy of Ayn Rand, also.

posted by GoldenMean on April 27, 2005 at 9:49 PM | link to this | reply

Golden:

I had meant to read this yesterday, but I forgot.  What I will do is I will print it out and read it in a more comfortable place so I can give it the thought it deserves.  I'll jot down my thoughts and then type them into the comments.  This will make for a somewhat delayed but better response.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on April 27, 2005 at 11:41 AM | link to this | reply

No SUV's in this post, Gubby!! ;-)

So what shall we discuss this time, folks?

posted by GoldenMean on April 25, 2005 at 10:22 PM | link to this | reply