Is there a True Good? And other such questions.

[Pionart]

I have recently been considering the problem of what is truly "Good". Some may say that happiness is in itself good. Others say that God is good, and following the law of God is good. Still others will claim that goodness is found in structures, that achieving great things is where goodness lies, or fulfilling our proper functioning.

It seems that, whatever our conception of the good, it is our minds that decides that it is good, and our minds are wrought with illusions and delusions. So when we have the feeling that happiness is itself a good thing, this is only a trick of the brain - the program that we run on flicked a switch that says "do this". And if God is good, but we are not God, how can we truly know the Will of God? It is only ever man's interpretation. And why should it ultimately matter if we achieve great things, or if we live a healthy life? We are programmed to do these things. We are programmed to think certain things are good, but where is the ultimate justification? Is there any?

And what of Free Will? Some say the very concept of Free Will is a contradiction. For Freedom is acausal, and Will operates in the world of causality. Anything which is free can never effect the world of matter which is determined, and so any feelings we have of free will are necessarily delusions, for a feeling influences matter, and anything which is free can not, insofar as it is free, influence anything else.

And what is God Itself, but a conception of the human mind? Albeit a universal, perhaps ingrained conception, but only something the mind uses as a notion of that which the universe, and all universes, spring from.

And what is truth, but a fixed idea, which is somehow born, and conquers its attackers? Could we say that it is true, that what lies in our consciousness, is simply there? That, though there may be delusions, the existence of those delusions, as we are constantly aware of, is true in the moment that it is, and then is true no longer? But, so long as there is something, is this truth?

Just some musings. Basic shit.



What is Good, What is Free, What is Will, What is God, What is Truth, What is Is?

 

[gromit]

Yeah man. You can get lost thinking of all that stuff.

I find good and God in living. In interactions with others, kindness. In our beautiful planet, as I spend time out in the woods or mountains, or by the ocean. Inspiration from people who fight injustice, then I feel like I can maybe do my own small part as well.

Reflection is of course very worthwhile, just don't get lost in it!

 

[Cellmold]

No.

 

[Pionart]

Yeah man. You can get lost thinking of all that stuff.

I find good and God in living. In interactions with others, kindness. In our beautiful planet, as I spend time out in the woods or mountains, or by the ocean. Inspiration from people who fight injustice, then I feel like I can maybe do my own small part as well.

Reflection is of course very worthwhile, just don't get lost in it!

What would be wrong with getting lost in it (not "what would be wrong" in the "there is no such thing as wrong" way that this thread is hinting at, I just mean in your opinion)? I agree that it would be bad, as I have gotten lost in my thoughts before, but I would like to know why so that I can know where to draw the line.

I can get out of the problem quite easily, like this:
- either there is no ultimate good, in which case it ultimately makes no difference what anyone, including myself, does
or
- there is an ultimate good, in which case certain choices are preferrable to others

If, on the one hand, you can do anything and it doesn't matter, and on the other hand, it does matter, well, you may as well live as though it does matter, just in case the other view is wrong.

And so I look at "what should I do now?" and I naturally have answers, and the answers I have at the time seem like the best ones to go by until I find better answers.

Things like, living a healthy life, being a kind person, fighting to save the planet from destruction, having the most intense experiences I can on the one hand, or remaining free from the ups and downs of life on the other hand.

And so too of free will. It makes no difference to ANYTHING whether there is free will or not. So what good will it do supposing that you have it or not? Tbh, I did away with the free will question many years ago when I decided the question was meaningless.

And I did away with the question of the good, when I decided that positive experience was the key. But now I'm not so sure.

 

[levinlady]

It is hard to say, I mean anything good has potential to become evil, and vice versa. I am wondering if free will is more a result of individual perception than anything. You have to wonder what good is to each different human too. For example, your pet has worms, so the worm is therefore evil, but is the worm's intent to be evil, and is what the worm doing evil from a survival standpoint? So is the worm *truly* evil?

 

[Pionart]

It is hard to say, I mean anything good has potential to become evil, and vice versa. I am wondering if free will is more a result of individual perception than anything. You have to wonder what good is to each different human too. For example, your pet has worms, so the worm is therefore evil, but is the worm's intent to be evil, and is what the worm doing evil from a survival standpoint? So is the worm *truly* evil?

I think free will, and all of these other concepts, are just a matter of perception, yes. But at the same time I believe that these perceptions in fact reflect fundamental truths about reality. Free will exists to our mind because it exists on a fundamental level, like a fractal. I have no reason really to think this, I just believe it to be the case.

As for good and evil, it seems you are suggesting that these are just a relation between different parts of reality. A is good to B because it helps B. But it would not make sense to say A is good in itself. There is something highly unsatisfying about this. However, we could then say that help is good in itself. Hm.

 

[danseen]

good and evil don't really exist.

 

[Oaky]

good and evil don't really exist.

As long as the concept is a properly formulated construct in the mind of an individual it does exist.

 

[danseen]

As long as the concept is a properly formulated construct in the mind of an individual it does exist.

I don't believe they even exist as mental constructs..

 

[Oaky]

I don't believe they even exist as mental constructs..

By such reasoning, mental constructs themselves do not exist. Or you believe in the predisposition of mental constructs, a rather bizarre thought when we start to play into the understanding of psychology.

 

[danseen]

By such reasoning, mental constructs themselves do not exist. Or you believe in the predisposition of mental constructs, a rather bizarre thought when we start to play into the understanding of psychology.

No, morality is non-existent. Mental constructs do exist, to assert they don't is foolishness...

 

[Oaky]

No, morality is non-existent. Mental constructs do exist, to assert they don't is foolishness...

Let's reason this:
Morality = Value Constructs
Value constructs affect everyone.
If morality is non-existent, value constructs do not exist, therefore no one in the world is affected by such things.
Yet everyone in the world is affected by value constructs...
So there am I missing a piece of the puzzle here?
Should I be going into the root core of an individual's desire?
How everyone is essentially only caring for themselves because it is the comfort of the formulation of the neural networks of the mind?
Yet even that is a construct of an instinctual value, which is part of the an individual's value constructs.
Should I be talking about biology? How everything is akin to a more complicated rock and so values do not exist?
But it's still affecting all these people... grrr this logic. I mean we label the complicated things based on new extensions but still... grrr it's kinda straining my simplistic mind.
And so...
If morality is non-existent... what is the name of those intangible things... that affect people in the world?

 

[Pionart]

I'm still convinced. If morality is false, it doesn't matter what we believe. If it is true, we should believe it. Hence I will try as much as I can to lead a moral life.

 

[LonestarCowgirl]

I'm still convinced. If morality is false, it doesn't matter what we believe. If it is true, we should believe it. Hence I will try as much as I can to lead a moral life.

My friend, God doesn't condemn you; He loves you as you are.

If your heart condemns you, look to the cross and Jesus. Believe.

You have unmerited, unearned, and undeserved favor with God through Jesus.

God makes everything beautiful in its time.

God's grace and peace to you.

 

[tkae.]

I have recently been considering the problem of what is truly "Good". Some may say that happiness is in itself good. Others say that God is good, and following the law of God is good. Still others will claim that goodness is found in structures, that achieving great things is where goodness lies, or fulfilling our proper functioning.

Morality is subjective (as you just pointed out by citing multiple systems of it, but each variant morality requires a true good and a true evil, or else it's amorality and amorality having anything related to good or evil is an inherent contradiction. Even if the morality rejects the idea of a universally "good" act, it still has inherent gradation so long as there are good and bad acts, which would otherwise be amorality, so...

There's no single act all systems of morality consider good, so there's no one "true" good. But there's an ultimate, apex good in each system of morality.

And what of Free Will? Some say the very concept of Free Will is a contradiction. For Freedom is acausal, and Will operates in the world of causality. Anything which is free can never effect the world of matter which is determined, and so any feelings we have of free will are necessarily delusions, for a feeling influences matter, and anything which is free can not, insofar as it is free, influence anything else.

People who say free will is a contradiction are just trying to muddy it up by arguing semantics, which is annoying to do, so people just decide to cede the point.

Whether or not freedom and will have anything to do with causality and causality is a moot point (though I disagree with you, I don't think will has anything to do with causality). Free will as an idea is based on ownership and control of one's own actions. You're talking about freedom like it makes us intangible from the real world. Being free to do something means we act under our initiative, and having the will to do something is that initiative, so semantically the two aren't contradictory. Free will is us having the means (our initiative/will) within ourselves to have ownership over and control of our own actions. If I wanted to stab myself in the leg, as stupid and illogical as it would be, I can do so, because I have free will, and it was me who stabbed myself in the leg, not some other being that made me do it. Even if I'm not acting in my right mind, I'm still not being controlled by some other entity, but rather by own (compromised) self, so I'm still demonstrating free will, though not self-control.

The antithesis to free will is the idea that we're slaves to social systems and/or upbringing, that we ultimately have no ownership over who we are, and therefor cannot have control over what we do. It's the idea that we aren't responsible for our own actions because -- subconsciously -- we have no ownership over our selves, and therefor the faculties our actions stem are pre-defined and not truly free. It's basically that our actions are defined the mold society formed us from. If that's the discussion you want, that's another thread entirely.

There are realistic limitations, of course. I can't fly because I don't possess the capability, and free will doesn't grant me capability, only the control of what I'm capable of. And I can't go out and make a million dollars tomorrow, because there's no action within my control that lets me do so. Free will doesn't let me control probability like the lottery and it doesn't grant me omnipotence to control others into giving me their money. But free will does grant me the capability of going out and trying to do those things.

 

[Pionart]

Morality is subjective (as you just pointed out by citing multiple systems of it, but each variant morality requires a true good and a true evil, or else it's amorality and amorality having anything related to good or evil is an inherent contradiction. Even if the morality rejects the idea of a universally "good" act, it still has inherent gradation so long as there are good and bad acts, which would otherwise be amorality, so...

There's no single act all systems of morality consider good, so there's no one "true" good. But there's an ultimate, apex good in each system of morality.

So, each system has its own good and evil. But then, there is no True good and evil. So, it would make no difference whether you act in one way or another, it only matters to a particular system?

The fact that there are multiple systems for good conduct doesn't mean that morality is "subjective" any more than the laws of nature are subjective. We can have differing opinions on what the laws of nature are, but there are still absolute laws which don't depend on what any person thinks.

People who say free will is a contradiction are just trying to muddy it up by arguing semantics, which is annoying to do, so people just decide to cede the point.

Whether or not freedom and will have anything to do with causality and causality is a moot point (though I disagree with you, I don't think will has anything to do with causality). Free will as an idea is based on ownership and control of one's own actions. You're talking about freedom like it makes us intangible from the real world. Being free to do something means we act under our initiative, and having the will to do something is that initiative, so semantically the two aren't contradictory. Free will is us having the means (our initiative/will) within ourselves to have ownership over and control of our own actions. If I wanted to stab myself in the leg, as stupid and illogical as it would be, I can do so, because I have free will, and it was me who stabbed myself in the leg, not some other being that made me do it. Even if I'm not acting in my right mind, I'm still not being controlled by some other entity, but rather by own (compromised) self, so I'm still demonstrating free will, though not self-control.

The antithesis to free will is the idea that we're slaves to social systems and/or upbringing, that we ultimately have no ownership over who we are, and therefor cannot have control over what we do. It's the idea that we aren't responsible for our own actions because -- subconsciously -- we have no ownership over our selves, and therefor the faculties our actions stem are pre-defined and not truly free. It's basically that our actions are defined the mold society formed us from. If that's the discussion you want, that's another thread entirely.

There are realistic limitations, of course. I can't fly because I don't possess the capability, and free will doesn't grant me capability, only the control of what I'm capable of. And I can't go out and make a million dollars tomorrow, because there's no action within my control that lets me do so. Free will doesn't let me control probability like the lottery and it doesn't grant me omnipotence to control others into giving me their money. But free will does grant me the capability of going out and trying to do those things.

You're describing a compatibilist account of free will. This kind of free will can co-exist with a 100% determined universe (not that the universe is necessarily predetermined). This is not the kind of free will I am looking for. I am looking for something which introduces a true possibility to act otherwise than you would have, given the deterministic laws of nature. Of course actions can be controlled by yourself rather than solely on the environment outside of yourself, but then -you- are controlled by the laws of nature. So free will in that case would simply be a structural relation that exists in a determined universe. I find this unsatisfying.

So, for me, the only way to introduce true free will would be to deny that determinism applies to humans, which does in a way set us away from the "tangible" world. (I am currently looking to quantum physics and spiritualism to explain it)

 

[á´…eparted]

Yes. I have not a lick of interest of debating it though.

 

[Pionart]

The thing that stops a lack of free will from becoming a problem to me, is the lack of truth. We may be convinced that there is no free will, and that life is just a movie we are watching which just seems so real, but really, this is just a model we are using to explain the world. And a model is an approximation at best. And the implications of the model are not necessarily real implications. The reality, if indeed reality means anything, is far more profound than any model we can use to explain it. Free will may or may not exist, and since it is just a concept, surely doesn't, but the reality of things doesn't care about that, for it is greater.

We can learn things from the notion of determinism. We learn that things have reasons for them, or rather than we can assign reasons to them. Things in the world don't spontaneously manifest but have their antecedents in their prior circumstances.

And my morality says that I should not dwell in negativity, so when an idea cripples me, I should not stay there. I can try and find a fix for it, to give myself closure, but I shouldn't require that. I should try and empower myself, not take away my power.

 

[LonestarCowgirl]

And my morality says that I should not dwell in negativity, so when an idea cripples me, I should not stay there. I can try and find a fix for it, to give myself closure, but I shouldn't require that. I should try and empower myself, not take away my power.

Well said. Looks like your free will is working just fine.

 

[miss fortune]

I'm still convinced. If morality is false, it doesn't matter what we believe. If it is true, we should believe it. Hence I will try as much as I can to lead a moral life.

Pascal's wager!

I'm more for believing in gray areas... so many uncertainties in life that to make a judgement of good or evil towards someone's actions without understanding all of the facts involved would be a bit hasty. that said, those who believe in things with a definite certainty seem less lost and adrift than me... I can't be one of them though...