How do you define goodness? Badness?

Niniva said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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?

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

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

Seriously, how do you -personally- recognize the little, petty evils in life?

Click to expand...

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.

I *almost* agree with Dale Emery.

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

Badness: Anything that harms "the tribe."

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Bartholomew said:

I *almost* agree with Dale Emery.

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

Badness: Anything that harms "the tribe."

Click to expand...

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

Dale

Ruv Draba said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Generally, I define badness as selfish and antisocial behavior.

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

Dale Emery said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

AMCrenshaw said:

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.

Click to expand...

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')

AMCrenshaw said:

If "goodness" is, as Ruv put it, only an effect, then integrity has nothing to do with it. The consequence is what is important.

Click to expand...

Au contraire, since our appreciation of the effect 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', or dieters who salve their guilt about high carb snacks because 'they're low in fat'.

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

AMCrenshaw said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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. 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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

'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?

Click to expand...

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 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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

AMCrenshaw said:

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?

Click to expand...

We seem to appreciate the distress, fear, pain of other beings very well. There's evidence that we have specialised brain functions to help us do this, and also evidence that dysfunction in empathy can be related to autism spectrum disorders 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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Dale Emery said:

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

Dale

Click to expand...

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

Niniva said:

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."

Click to expand...

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.