How do you define goodness? Badness?

[Niniva]

As an atheist, there is one thing that remains that people of faith often overlook: my essential goodness. First, sects of religions generally teach that one cannot possess goodness without their faith. Next, religions say, "Well, okay, but their good works aren't worth anything because they don't have faith."

(Well, what good could faith possibly be without works? It seems a bit like covering one's own hide but nothing more.)

Without a religion to tell me that it is okay to screw up, I have a perfectionism that borders on obsessive-compulsive. I must do the right thing, do the right thing, DO the right thing!

And, it seems like I do indeed have some fixed, internal barometer that makes me assess "If I were in this situation, what would make it better?" "What is the best way to fill this need?" "How can I make this horrible situation turn out as well as possible?"

So, how do the rest of us define goodness?
For that matter, how do we recognize badness?

I've had to save the life of a liar and thief, but I was unable to bring enough force of goodness on her to get rid of the lying and thieving. I'm not talking minor manipulation here; I'm talking about rob you blind to get high, tell others that you will cover her debts, and had to lie cheat and steal to survive because her parents were just the same.

Now, her brother, who is just another pea in the pod, has got a girl pregnant who refuses to take care of herself. She has been anorexic during the pregnancy and refuses prenatal vitamins.

Would it be bad of me to use manipulation and force to cause her to sign adoption papers, or should I let this generational cycle continue, let him suffer neglect if not outright abuse? This is the kind of debate that religion was meant to answer, so it bears discussion by atheists as well.

What could be worse than stealing a woman's beloved child? Is it worse to know the child's fate and do nothing?

It's real simple to just think Protective Services can do this, but can they ever? Foster parents are seldom able to understand that real mommy f***ed up that kid before it was born.

Would foster parents be able to handle a child who has bad-action prone genes plus poor neonatal nutrition? Would anyone tell those foster parents about the anorexia and the vitamins?

Could foster parents ever be prepared for the demon that they have likely brought into their home, provided that the kid was left with mommy and daddy those first three years of most important character development?

I talked to a foster parent about adoption earlier, and, with a tear in his eye, he said, "Please, don't do it." His stable, kind wife took to drinking heavily from the sheer stress.

My final decision: I hate it, but the cycle will continue. I have no children of my own because my mental illness can affect my ability to cope with "bad noises." The demon spawn would use it against me. I cannot fix every woe in the world; I know my limitations.

[Ruv Draba]

So, how do the rest of us define goodness?
For that matter, how do we recognize badness?I think it's important to distinguish recognition from definition here. One is descriptive, the other is prescriptive.

I believe that our appreciation of goodness links to our empathy for others, our appreciation of what they need, and our ability to meet competing needs sustainably. I don't believe that we can define goodness, but we can describe and share our appreciations of it.

While it's a popular view today to say that goodness is subjective, I don't believe that. What I think is true is that the people use politics to manipulate our appreciations of good.

I've had to save the life of a liar and thief, but I was unable to bring enough force of goodness on her to get rid of the lying and thieving.I don't believe that goodness is a force, but an effect. I believe that it's magical thinking to imagine that good somehow 'forces' more good. It can sometimes inspire the desire to do good, but the 'energy' of the undertaking comes from the people who do the deeds.

Would it be bad of me to use manipulation and force to cause her to sign adoption papers, or should I let this generational cycle continue, let him suffer neglect if not outright abuse?I believe that you're talking ethics here as much as morality.

Morality means knowing what's good and understanding consequences and impacts. Ethics means deciding what we owe one another.

I'm not going to offer advice on this specific instance, but I have observed in general that self-interest distorts ethics far more than it seems to distort morality. The most important thing we can do ethically, I believe, is to abandon our self-interest before deciding what we owe anyone. This usually includes our selfish desires to be liked, be comfortable, be right or be in charge.

For this reason, some good ethical tests for a proposed course of action include:


If everyone knew what you'd done, would it still be acceptable?
If it were done to you or your loved ones on the same principle, would you accept it?
If any of the facts or opinions you used were wrong, would it still be an appropriate action?
If it were not you doing it, but someone else, would you permit it?

[Niniva]

Perhaps it is a question of ethics. Do something morally bereft for the benefit of all non-morally bereft humans who will be hurt by morally bereft idiots, OR hold my peace and let it happen.

As I said, the decision is made. I was just wondering how others might weigh in on this one, since it is a lose/lose situation morally.

You are correct about trying to force goodness - the world simply does not work that way.

I need to be able to recognize badness more than I need to understand it; I'm not certain that I will ever understand the definition of badness. It eludes me. I come up with comically, graphically evil demons that are so undeniably bad that they eclipse any common badness. Frankly, I need an understanding of banal evil to better deal with the real world.

Seriously, how do you -personally- recognize the little, petty evils in life? I only recognize it after it's too late. (Although I am getting better, or perhaps just jaded. Hubby thinks I may fall somewhere on the autism spectrum because of how poorly I relate to real humans.)

I just don't think these people should be allowed to masquerade as real people; there has to be someway to recognize them. I've found a few catch phrases: "We're all in this together," means let me attach my sinking boat to your raft. "It's not fair," means I didn't get what I think I deserve. "They are bad people," means I want to distract you from what I've done. Finally, "Everybody is this way," means I don't know any other life.

Oh, and constantly broke increases the likelihood that they have an affinity for drugs.

That is as far as I've gotten in learning to recognize badness before someone affects me, again.

[AMCrenshaw]

A lot of times, people who worry about their own ethical behavior have nothing to worry about. The converse is also true.


"Goodness", if it exists, is both a force and an effect. Knowing what goodness is is very difficult. It's not clear-cut. When you consider ethics (the dictionary term), it's useful to consider what a person owes themselves. Empathy, then, from an outsider's standpoint, yields certain answers to this question that are situational. They are relative in this way only. Think about you in another person's position: what would you want for yourself? It's very possible more money for drugs. But what about those few moments of clarity? They exist, be sure. Think about it.

When you act, you have to be sure of yourself; the rest will follow. If you "fail", you have to wonder what it was you were actually working toward...

AMC

[Dale Emery]

Goodness: That which I perceive serves my needs.

Badness: That which I perceive thwarts my needs.

Yep, I'm a relativist.

As for perfection: This is entirely a matter of what you choose as your basis for comparison. What standard do you choose to compare yourself to? What led you to choose that standard? Do those reasons still apply? How well or poorly does the standard serve you?

Dale

[Ruv Draba]

Seriously, how do you -personally- recognize the little, petty evils in life?By the absence of notable good.

I look for three key virtues in human behaviour: honesty, courage and generosity. When these aren't present I assume poor integrity, crippling weakness or selfish intent. These all produce more bad than good.

[Bartholomew]

I *almost* agree with Dale Emery.

Goodness: That which I perceive to help "the tribe."

Badness: Anything that harms "the tribe."

[Woodsie]

I am compelled to comment based on my own personal history with the subject matter. If only to offer an attempt toward balance.....

It's real simple to just think Protective Services can do this, but can they ever? Foster parents are seldom able to understand that real mommy f***ed up that kid before it was born.

Are you saying that a child who was born into a damaging situation is a lost cause? If not, please clarify. If so, then you are talking about me.

My mother was 15, mentally ill, and homeless when she had me. I lived with her in several damaging situations until I was six at which time I was placed in foster care.

Would foster parents be able to handle a child who has bad-action prone genes plus poor neonatal nutrition?

Response to the first half: Do you not think that a child can have such a strong will to become something better than where they originated that they defy their so-called heritage? As a child I remember having the clarity of thought that I knew, without a doubt, I would have a decent life when I was in control of it. When I was being tortured and starved, I knew that this is not the way life is supposed to be and some day it won't happen to me anymore.

Response to the second half: My mother was homeless and went without any prenatal care when she was pregnant with me. I was born premature and when she brought me home from the hospital my bed was a shoebox that she had lined with her t-shirt. I didn't receive my vaccinations until I was seven years old. My baby teeth were brown. As an adult, I have absolutely no health problems, my teeth are white and straight without the help of any dental procedure. I am strong, physically and emotionally healthy and productive.

Could foster parents ever be prepared for the demon that they have likely brought into their home, provided that the kid was left with mommy and daddy those first three years of most important character development?

I mentioned earlier that I was with my mother and her damaging lifestyle until I was six years old. When I was removed from her and placed in foster care, I was so relieved to have someone who would feed me, give me clean clothes, teach me how to bathe and put me to bed under warm blankets. I was moved through eleven different homes before my ninth birthday. I was not a demon. I know this because, as every one of my foster mothers tearfully packed my belongings, they told me that they had never considered adoption until they knew they had to say good-bye to me.

As an overall response to the general implication you have here, I will add these additional thoughts:

When I was ten, I went up for adoption. As part of the adoption process I had to undergo psychiatric evaluation. Part of that evaluation was an IQ test. The psychologist administering the test paused for a moment and called his secretary in and said, 'Listen to this." As he continued the test, the two of them exchanged glances with smiles, head shakes and raised eyebrows. The results of my test fell in the genius category.

I don't know how a mentally ill child could produce a smart, productive little girl, but she did.

If I was a lost cause, nobody ever told me about it.

[Dale Emery]

I *almost* agree with Dale Emery.

Goodness: That which I perceive to help "the tribe."

Badness: Anything that harms "the tribe."

For people who construe their needs to include the needs of "the tribe," it comes out the same. ;-)

Dale

[Dale Emery]

I look for three key virtues in human behaviour: honesty, courage and generosity. When these aren't present I assume poor integrity, crippling weakness or selfish intent.

Do you mean that you assume poor integrity, crippling weakness, and selfish intent by default until you observe otherwise? If so, that seems ungenerous to me. Am I misunderstanding?

Dale

[Sarpedon]

Generally, I define badness as selfish and antisocial behavior.

[AMCrenshaw]

Everyone has it right, and wrong: the entire dichotomy is based on what one perceives to be true. Courage is not inherently good. People who are meek and/or humble can create a lot of "goodness" for "the tribe" without ever really being courageous. If "goodness" is, as Ruv put it, only an effect, then integrity has nothing to do with it. The consequence is what is important. If I made airs about wanting to help the poor, and actually donated money to secure my little lie, there's nothing honest about my "good deed". I.e., If there are "good" consequences, then the action can be called "good". I can't agree with this.

But neither can I agree with relativism. It's a poor excuse for philosophy and a poor justification to shrug personal responsibility, and, for that matter, creativity. The people who claim this will never be able to tell me what was "Good" about Stalin's execution of 20+ million people. And I suspect these same people will be quite quick to critique the Crusades on the basis of their fanatic, but deluded notions of "absolutism".

To say all things are relative is to assert an objective truth. (In my opinion ! get it?)

There is nothing Evil and nothing Good (capital G): These things are human-made abstractions that never really find their way into reality. [It's been suggested, for example, that the Holocaust never would have occurred had Adolf Hitler made it into Art School, suggesting also that he may have been human at one time.]

It should be obvious: There is only what is destructive and what is creative for the human "tribe" as a whole entity. There is what marginalizes, falsely isolates and oppresses people and what cherishes, unites and serves them.



AMC

[Ruv Draba]

Do you mean that you assume poor integrity, crippling weakness, and selfish intent by default until you observe otherwise? If so, that seems ungenerous to me. Am I misunderstanding?You don't misunderstand what I've said Dale, but you might misunderstand why I've said it. (And I think you delight in being mischeivous :))

People are not 'born good'. We're born loving and lovable, delighting and delightful, malleable and demanding. But if good in the world is an effect, then good in a person is our capacity and commitment to sustain that effect. That is something we can only learn; we can't simply be it or (worse) just feel it.

If we learn to appreciate good, commit to good and sacrifice for good then that becomes apparent in every human interaction: in what we perceive and react to; how we react to it; how we deal with one another.

People cannot be neutral in their interactions with one another. Nearly every interaction with another person challenges our honesty, our courage or our generosity somehow. We get a wealth of evidence of someone's values in a very short period of time on even superficial dealings.

[Ruv Draba]

Courage is not inherently good. People who are meek and/or humble can create a lot of "goodness" for "the tribe" without ever really being courageous.
It's not my thesis that honesty, courage and generosity are inherently good. It's my thesis that people who consistently do good display this character - which is why their absence in someone else carries some information about their ability or will to do good. (Recall that the inciting question was 'how to recognise bad in other people')

If "goodness" is, as Ruv put it, only an effect, then integrity has nothing to do with it. The consequence is what is important.Au contraire, since our appreciation of the effect (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2701017&postcount=2) also plays a part.

One of the biggest psychological problems of poor integrity is that it creates confused and inconsistent perceptions of the world. If we can't hold integrity, then our appreciation of good and our understanding of consequence waver with every challenge. That makes us poor monitors of good effect and thereby hampers our ability to do good.

We see examples of this in (for example) corporate 'greenwashing' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwash), or dieters who salve their guilt about high carb snacks because 'they're low in fat'.

[AMCrenshaw]

...define goodness, but we can describe and share our appreciations of it.



One of the biggest psychological problems of poor integrity is that it creates confused and inconsistent perceptions of the world. If we can't hold integrity, then our appreciation of good and our understanding of consequence waver with every challenge. That makes us poor monitors of good effect and thereby hampers our ability to do good.

In whom does it create inconsistent perceptions of the world? The person who lacks integrity or the persons who are affected by the lack of integrity? If you are arguing that a lack of integrity creates inconsistent perceptions of the world in the individual who lacks integrity, I have to get this straight.

What you call consistent must be based on predictable causes and effects. If subject A possesses integrity enters into a controlled situation, then a limited array of effects (B) should occur, based on their "reliable" perception of things. [There was a novel about this, which concerned itself with seeing into the future based on probability]. So if and only if perception and personal integrity are actually connected does this little system work. Do I have this somewhat right?

But if good in the world is an effect, then good in a person is our capacity and commitment to sustain that effect.

Sorry, Ruv. Another question maybe most likely based on semantics.

What exactly do you mean by sustaining an effect?

If an effect is "sustained" is there any point when it stops being an effect and becomes something else, like a force of its own? That is, how can you say with certainty that an effect can be sustained if it's not also a force? I throw a ball in the air and gravity brings it down. Gravity is the force and the effect is it coming down. My question, you might gather, is: What is the force is not goodness itself?

Also, I might not be reading carefully, but have you described good or goodness? You have described the characteristics of people who do good, and have said it is linked to empathy. Is your thought about good ethics, essentially, the Golden Rule?

This might help me figure out what you might describe as "bad".

AMC

[Ruv Draba]

If you are arguing that a lack of integrity creates inconsistent perceptions of the world in the individual who lacks integrity, I have to get this straight.Yes, I am.

What you call consistent must be based on predictable causes and effects. If subject A possesses integrity enters into a controlled situation, then a limited array of effects (B) should occur, based on their "reliable" perception of things. So if and only if perception and personal integrity are actually connected does this little system work. Do I have this somewhat right?I'm not sure. Perhaps it's easier if I just illustrate it. Inconsistency can result from either of:

An appreciation of events that's not consistent with the objective facts (e.g. 'I didn't really punch him. I just pushed him with my fist')
An appreciation of weal and harm that's chaotic or corrupt (e.g. 'Johnny will be glad if I give his bicycle to that poor kid', or 'What's mine is mine; what's yours is mine too')Integrity opposes outright falsity, along with chaotic or corrupt constructions - in fact that almost defines what integrity is.What exactly do you mean by sustaining an effect?I was talking about sustaining the effort directed toward doing good.


If an effect is "sustained" is there any point when it stops being an effect and becomes something else, like a force of its own?The effect of 'good' arises because something useful or needful is delivered to a place where it is valued. The effect of 'good' lasts as only as long as the need or value does, regardless of how much you deliver. If a thirsty man needs a drink then a cup or two will suffice. You don't have to drown him in a horse-trough. :D Some good is done as soon as you do it; more effort won't add to the good. Other good requires prolonged effort (education and exercise come to mind). And then there's the good that we have yet to do - sometimes, sustaining our capacity to do good means sustaining ourselves. ;)

My question, you might gather, is: What is the force is not goodness itself?Force originally comes from the Latin fortis meaning 'strength'. If you're asking me what is the strength that gives water to a thirsty man then I'd say it's the strength of heat from the sun that makes fresh water from foul, and of the muscles that fill the bucket, and that carry the bucket to him.

But I think that you're really saying, what is the source of generosity that makes us share our water? I would say that it's because of our empathy, that lets us feel thirst when another does - even if we aren't thirsty. Our potential for passive empathy is innate, but the skill of active, discerning empathy is (as every writer should know) learned.


Also, I might not be reading carefully, but have you described good or goodness?'Good' is an adjective. It derives from the proto Indo-European word-base ghedh meaning 'suitable', and also 'unity'. We sometimes treat it as a noun (as in 'a good'), but really we're eliding the noun when we do that ('a good thing').

'Goodness' is the noun defining the abstract quality of 'good'. It gives us a term by which to describe our appreciation of good itself - but that appreciation is of course buried in any use of the adjective.

You have described the characteristics of people who do good, and have said it is linked to empathy. Is your thought about good ethics, essentially, the Golden Rule?No, I'm with Shaw and Popper in finding the Golden Rule ('do as you would be done by') both misleading and inadequate.

Reciprocity is a critical element of ethics, and underpins our fundamental notions of good, but the Golden Rule is about reciprocal deed, not reciprocal need. It relates more to notions of karma ('be done by as you did') than to compassion ('be done by as you need'). I need food, and you need food but you and I may not need the same food. I need shelter, and you need shelter, but you and I may not need the same shelter. I need to belong to a tribe and you need to belong to a tribe, but you and I may not need to belong to the same tribe.

Recognising that another person thirsts is a first step toward doing good for that person. That recognition derives directly from empathy. But we can kill a dehydrated man by giving him too much to drink - a saline drip might work better. Untrained and ill-educated empathy can mislead us into thinking that what another needs is what we want on their behalf. The Golden Rule enshrines that error and incidentally legitimises the very worst forms of evangelism and patriarchal interventionism. It was a sensible ethical principle up until the Age of Englightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) maybe, but we understand a lot more about people now than we did then - and also, in fairness to pre-Englightenment societies, you can afford certain moral rights (like the liberty of a labour force) much more easily when your economy starts generating lots of disposable wealth.

[AMCrenshaw]

I would say that it's because of our empathy, that lets us feel thirst when another does - even if we aren't thirsty. Our potential for passive empathy is innate, but the skill of active, discerning empathy is (as every writer should know) learned.

This seems like quite a poetic achievement. When I watch someone die in a car crash is it possible I know what it feels like to be in a fatal car crash-- even if I've never been in one? In your example, does my throat become dry suddenly? Does my brain tell my body, "We need some water"? Or is what you mean in a non-literal, metaphorical sense?

Also, could you point me to any articles about empathy? I'm ignorant of everything but its definition...


Reciprocity is a critical element of ethics, and underpins our fundamental notions of good, but the Golden Rule is about reciprocal deed, not reciprocal need. It relates more to notions of karma ('be done by as you did') than to compassion ('be done by as you need'). I need food, and you need food but you and I may not need the same food. I need shelter, and you need shelter, but you and I may not need the same shelter. I need to belong to a tribe and you need to belong to a tribe, but you and I may not need to belong to the same tribe.

Karma is action or deed. The proper way to look at that, of course, is that "action" always has re-action. The idea is to act out of empathy: you need basic amounts of food and water? Hey, me too. You don't want your head sliced off? Hey, me either. I don't think there is anything different (except wording).

Of course, that's the issue to my mind: a metaphor has been made literal, which is exactly the danger you are professing against, and rightly so. It's not: I shall give you what I would want. But because I want and need some things, you probably want and some things, too. The phrase should signal what generalities (basic wants and needs) we have in common-- but it does not go into great depths about specifics. Why should it, anyway? But at the same time, for that reason, I think you are right in saying it's misleading, if only because the phrase is so damn vague...


Whew. Sorry, Nivina. You provided me with an interesting side-discussion. Hopefully there is something in our talk you can use.

[Ruv Draba]

This seems like quite a poetic achievement. When I watch someone die in a car crash is it possible I know what it feels like to be in a fatal car crash-- even if I've never been in one?We seem to appreciate the distress, fear, pain of other beings very well. There's evidence that we have specialised brain functions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron_system)to help us do this, and also evidence that dysfunction in empathy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy)can be related to autism spectrum disorders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_spectrum_disorder)that result in retardation of social and communicative development. These problems may manifest as early as age three.

Empathy is certainly not merely poetic. It's a psychological function - and in the very young, empathy for another person's suffering is sometimes indistinguishable to them from their own suffering.

Empathy is not always benign either. It can be used to inflict great cruelty.
Karma is action or deed.Yes, but I think that it's normally construed within a moral causative effect of action or deed. I mentioned it because 'do as you would be done by' is frequently turned into a threat: 'what goes around, comes around', or 'be done by as you did'. This thought appears in Babylonian law from around the time of Hammurabi. It made its way into Old Testament thinking, and of course appears in Eastern philosophy too where it reaches an even more bizarre form: 'If you suffer it, you must somehow deserve it'.
The proper way to look at that, of course, is that "action" always has re-action.I'd say effect rather than reaction, since the latter may also connote emotional response, assessment and a decision to do something in reply. In practice, if someone hurts me and I conceal that fact then let it pass, I may not provide them with reaction at all. They have effect, but not necessarily reaction.

The idea is to act out of empathy: you need basic amounts of food and water? Hey, me too.You may not see the importance of understanding coupled with empathy, but I think it's strong. 'You need food? So do I. I like sugar - eat this' -- that sort of response could kill a diabetic. I think that the formula is something like this: Empathy + Sympathy + Understanding = Compassion. So to return to the question of 'where is the strength that does good' - I think it's somewhere in all of them, but the motive power lies between the empathy and the sympathy. Empathy and sympathy are both learnable, if not always teachable.

[AMCrenshaw]

'If you suffer it, you must somehow deserve it'.

This appears in Tibetan Buddhism as well and I don't find it useful as anything more than a way to inflict a conscience onto somebody. If that's even useful.

You may not see the importance of understanding coupled with empathy

Did you read the rest of my post? :)

But because I want and need some things, you probably want and some things, too. The phrase should signal what generalities (basic wants and needs) we have in common-- but it does not go into great depths about specifics. Why should it, anyway? But at the same time, for that reason, I think you are right in saying it's misleading, if only because the phrase is so damn vague...

If the Golden Rule is an aphorism (which it is, modern reader), then you have to think about what it could mean, and then decide what's actually ethical and practical. I.e., not giving sugar to a diabetic. Remember, if I was the diabetic, I wouldn't be wanting sugar either. But that's an empathy that possesses a little bit of reason already.

I'm going to research how often empathy is used without any sense of reason whatsoever.


Empathy and sympathy are both learnable, if not always teachable.

Except to autistic people, right? And I think you mean using empathy and sympathy in an understanding way...

Anyway, that last line gave me something to really think about.

[Bartholomew]

For people who construe their needs to include the needs of "the tribe," it comes out the same. ;-)

Dale

True. But it is the people who don't that trouble me the most.

[MaLanie1971]

In regard to goodness and badness, I have to keep it simple as I am a simple person. When faced with a moral situation I ask myself who is it that I want to be in this moment. From that question I allow myself the freedom to choose who I want to be (true free-will) and then I make a choice that reflects who I am without judgment.

Since leaving my dogma driven lifestyle five years ago I have learned how to love and serve people without, 1) motivation to convert people 2) fear of god's wrath and now I have found my love is much deeper and passionate than ever before as the motivation comes from a place of love rather than the ego (I'm gonna get something out of this thinking).

[mister_lister]

To The Original Poster:

I think it is partly our responsibility to look out for other peoples needs and especially the needs of children. It is tempting to go to different extremes: either throw up your hands and walk away, or, wrestle for control of the situation. There has to be a middle ground that is effective.

I try not to use the term evil for people. The word evil, despite the dictionary definition, has more of a supernatural element to it's common use. Your categorization of a child as a "demon", prooves you have this kind of thinking in you. It is magical thinking and needs to be done away with. People are not supernatural and we should not think in those terms when dealing, or thinking of other human beings behavior.

For me a helpful transition away from that kind of thinking, happened when I was exposed to Buddhism. I am not religious anymore but, the Buddhists have terms for things in human behavior which are more accurate. The terms are: "Skillful" or "Unskillful". My understanding of these terms helped me come out of the black and white spiritual ideas of good and bad, into more of a rational idea of the subjects. I can not tell you if that was the intentions of the Buddhists I learned the words from, but it definitely was the effect it had on my thinking.

[IdiotsRUs]

I was going to answer the op

then everyone got brainy on my arse and I got confuddled.

So, I'm just gonna say this. Religion ( or its absence) is personal - for every Christian there is a different interpretation of the bible, for every Muslim, a slightly different interpretation of the Koran. For every atheist there is a slightly diffent mindset.

Religion, or the lack of it is personal. It is down to what you feel in your heart.


Search what feel right and good in your heart ( no matter what any religion says) Do what seems right, to you, given your ethics, whether they come from religion or not.

Sod what other people think. **

**This is not to say I find other people religions / actions / ethics invalid. I don't. Just that your own ethics take precedence over your own actions in your own life. Do it because you believe it is right, not because you were told it is right.

If what you do is good or bad is not up to anyone here. ( if anyone at all) Only what you tried to do.

[2Wheels]

The Greeks had this thing called the "social contract". It supposes that there is an innate drive to do things which benefit society, so that society can continue to thrive. As individuals we are useless - we need society to survive.

Goodness therefore (which I believe stems from "godliness", but could be wrong) is anything which benefits some person, or persons beyond the individual. There is also often a payback to the individual in the sense of satisfaction at having done something to benefit society - to have fulfilled the social contract.

Badness thus, is an act which is counter to the contract, but funnily enough it often brings some kind of payback to the individual, although not in a "good" sense. Payback may be the satisfaction of having revenge, meeting greedy desires, gaining attention etc.

At least that's my 50 cents, pence, yen, pesos, whatever.

[MGraybosch]

As an atheist, there is one thing that remains that people of faith often overlook: my essential goodness. First, sects of religions generally teach that one cannot possess goodness without their faith. Next, religions say, "Well, okay, but their good works aren't worth anything because they don't have faith."

I try not to worry about such issues, myself. If a religious person insists that I am evil because I refuse to believe, and therefore hellbound, I just shrug and say, "I'll see you there."

As for ethics, I don't care much for most systems of morality, as they condemn natural human selfishness and try to encourage its suppression instead of trying to harness it. I'm not, however, an Objectivist. I see no need to justify selfishness by wrapping it in an Aristotlean virtue ethic. :)

To be honest, I tend to stick to a small set of basic principles when deciding how to act:

If it's not yours, don't screw with it.
The end does not justify the means.
Assume that others have the same rights you claim for yourself.
Treat others as they have treated you.
Be wary of vengeance; it can often spiral out of control and harm people who haven't pissed you off.These work for me 99.999% of the time.

[Justin K]

I like this topic; I'm planning to write about it in a relationship self-help book for adolescents. Actually, I'm mainly going to discuss whether or not there are indisputable ways, besides consensus, to define good and bad in non god-given morality. Ultimately, I'm going to make the case that there aren't, and that religion was the historical answer to this problem but is now actually just outdated consensus. Not to say that it is or isn't beneficial to society, just that it's an outdated consensus. Any thoughts?

[Ruv Draba]

I'm mainly going to discuss whether or not there are indisputable ways, besides consensus, to define good and bad in non god-given morality.Theists are often concerned that consensus replaces morality with something weaker -- expedience or custom, say. Their concern is that unless you anchor morality to something more consistent than transient opinion, it will erode to become meaningless.

I think they have a point, but as a secular humanist I draw a different conclusion. I distinguish morality (an understand of what is good and bad) from ethics (an understanding of what we owe one another) and custom (a consensus on how we should act).

To my mind, morality should evolve and not simply mutate or decay. Compassionate, rational enquiry allows us to share objective knowledge with one another about what people need. That objective knowledge then becomes the basis of morality... and from morality we can then formulate ethics and from our ethics we can if we wish develop custom.

I believe that this is superior to received morality because it adapts to growing knowledge. But it's stronger than simply consensus because it doesn't confuse custom (what is expected) with genuine need (those requirements that, if they're not met, cause prolonged or irreversible harm)

[Justin K]

Theists are often concerned that consensus replaces morality with something weaker -- expedience or custom, say. Their concern is that unless you anchor morality to something more consistent than transient opinion, it will erode to become meaningless.

I think they have a point, but as a secular humanist I draw a different conclusion. I distinguish morality (an understand of what is good and bad) from ethics (an understanding of what we owe one another) and custom (a consensus on how we should act).

To my mind, morality should evolve and not simply mutate or decay. Compassionate, rational enquiry allows us to share objective knowledge with one another about what people need. That objective knowledge then becomes the basis of morality... and from morality we can then formulate ethics and from our ethics we can if we wish develop custom.

I believe that this is superior to received morality because it adapts to growing knowledge. But it's stronger than simply consensus because it doesn't confuse custom (what is expected) with genuine need (those requirements that, if they're not met, cause prolonged or irreversible harm)

I do agree that consensus is not a reliable foundation for morality. It's unfortunate though that theists will never see their religious doctrines as a dated consensus; the wisdom in them is 'divine'. I think this is a significant reason why morality has had a hard time evolving. Our legislation has always been tied to religious values and so it's hard to change anything when we want to further develop our morality.

That being said, even when we do want to develop our morality, I still think there's no consistent framework by which to go about it. I have to point to this 'rational inquiry' now. It does bring objective knowledge as you say, but a lot of it deals with general concepts. Yes, we can determine systematically that murder and theft is bad with respect to what society needs, but morality is so circumstantial, and there are some things that are just so intrinsically ambiguous that there are in fact no indisputable ways, besides consensus, to determine morality for them. I'm not saying that consensus isn't or shouldn't be a function of our BEST efforts to pull together what would benefit society the most in the long run, but I am saying that consensus is inescapable.

[Ruv Draba]

but morality is so circumstantial, and there are some things that are just so intrinsically ambiguous that there are in fact no indisputable ways, besides consensus, to determine morality for them.
The point of morality isn't to have an absolute, perfect sense of what is good and not. The point of morality is to try and understand what people need, why they need it and the consequences of our actions so that we can make better decisions. Consensus has nothing to do with that understanding, but sympathy, empathy and observation do.

Morality can indeed be circumstantial. The same action in two different circumstances can have vastly different consequences.

Ethics though are a different matter. Ethics is the study of what we owe one another. Where morality (what people need and how my actions affect that) is circumstantial, ethics shouldn't be. If I owe people truth or dignity then I always owe it to them, regardless of whether I think they actually need it today. If I don't supply you with truth or dignity today then that's entirely a reflection on my ethical character, and not on your worth.

Reflection is a valuable ajdunct to developing a moral and ethical sense. What others see helps to add to our stock of knowledge. But I believe that consensus is useless, except in shaping custom. Consensus produces harm and inequity all the time -- all that's needed for consensus to be amoral is for a majority of people to be blind to their consequences or unconcerned for their impacts (which I think is often). All that's needed for consensus to be unethical is for a majority of people to reach agreement based on what's convenient for them (which I think is often).

What consensus produces is custom, and custom is frequently used as a substitute for morality and ethics. Custom doesn't necessarily produce good or equitable outcomes but it does at least operate predictably, which is perhaps why some prefer it. People tend not to criticise us if we conform to custom, even if what we do is harmful and inequitable.

It may sound from the above that I'm saying that morality and ethics are personal and subjective. I'm not. People who are sincere about making better decisions based on real evidence will tend to come to the same decisions because empathy, sympathy, sharing observations and mutual reflection will take them there. That direction may be a different direction to custom though, depending on whether we're observing and reflecting, or just bowing to social norms.

[Rhys Cordelle]

What troubles me most about religion is when it convinces people that good and evil are forces that exist independant of human thinking. This kind of thinking leads people to believe that you can overcome your less common sexual orientation or your major depressive episode or your poor financial situation or any number of things by allowing an external force of goodness to overcome the external force of evil that has apparently taken hold of you.

Personally I don't know how people can live their lives believing that everyone around them is plagued by demons. Mind=blown.

Regarding atheists defining good and bad, I would say it's exactly the same as religious people. The only difference is that sometimes (and by no means always) when a religious person is judging whether something is good or bad, they will remember to base that decision on biblical teachings. You could raise a child with a completely fabricated list of life lessons about what is good and what is bad, and they would function in much the same way.

[fullbookjacket]

I'd like to steer the derivation of good and bad into an area that overlaps religious and atheist thought. There should be a lot of common ground.

For example, atheists would do well to acknowledge that Biblical parables like that of the Prodigal Son are wonderful moral stories. The religious would do well to acknowledge that a story like the Great Flood, which is not only physically impossible but also okays global genocide, is horrific and only designed to scare people into submission.

When people recognize that holy texts were conceived with an agenda, then they can take the logical step of embracing the parts that have true moral value and pushing them forward into a moral code that can guide our futures with compassion.

[MGraybosch]

Personally I don't know how people can live their lives believing that everyone around them is plagued by demons.

To be honest, this is how I see religious people when I'm in one of my less-charitable moods: I see them as demon-ridden, for to me all gods are demons. It's not a sentiment I express often, because I know my wife would say "that's not nice".

[MGraybosch]

For example, atheists would do well to acknowledge that Biblical parables like that of the Prodigal Son are wonderful moral stories.

I prefer the parable of the talents, myself; I never quite grokked the Prodigal Son.

[Rhys Cordelle]

When people recognize that holy texts were conceived with an agenda, then they can take the logical step of embracing the parts that have true moral value and pushing them forward into a moral code that can guide our futures with compassion.

But this can just as easily be achieved by discarding the entire text. My form of morality may have parallels with some of the parrables in the bible, but I don't need to depend on those parrables to reach those conclusions.

[Ruv Draba]

For example, atheists would do well to acknowledge that Biblical parables like that of the Prodigal Son are wonderful moral stories. The religious would do well to acknowledge that a story like the Great Flood, which is not only physically impossible but also okays global genocide, is horrific and only designed to scare people into submission.I don't think it's anyone's prerogative to dictate the terms under which thought should be appreciated, or morality be defined. If I were to pick and choose from the Bible, there are a few Old Testament stories that I like, and very few New Testament parables. But since many people I know prefer the NT, I suppose that says more about me than the stories. There are also some OT stories I find loathesome, and some NT stories I find vapid, and as I've complained elsewhere, I don't actually like the Biblical style of storytelling anyway, even in its more recent versions. On the other hand, the Mahabharata and the tales of Monkey say, have great apeal for me, even when I think that the moral messages are sometimes questionable.

What conclusion can we draw? Perhaps that people have different values and like different kinds of storytelling... While I think that there is a common sense of goodness to be found in human thought, and while I think it can be found in religious thought as well as other places, I don't think it can be found easily, or always where we expect to find it, and certainly not by dictating it to others.

[Rhys Cordelle]

I don't understand why the prodigal son is a wonderful moral story. What moral lessons can we draw from it?


Goodness is an icy cold coke on a hot summer day.

Badness is when shows like Dollhouse get cancelled :(