Your question, taken literally, is asking about the meaning of the word 'good'. It has various definitions which are already set by customary usage. You can't change those. For example, one meaning of good is 'yummy', as in "This cream cake is very good". So you might start with a dictionary and run through the various usages we already have.

Another usage of 'good', which you may or may not find in a dictionary, but which I suggest is a definition which describes usage is 'that which is valued'. For example "Democracy is good" means "democracy is valuable"

There comes a point where theory takes over from definition. People disgaree, for example, about whether what is good is always relative to a point of view. Some would argue, "Democracy is good" has no meaning without an explicit or implicit point of view, whereas "I value democracy, democracy is good for me" does have meaning because it specifies a point of view.

You may be right. In which case the OP is confused, as doing what is good then exactly entails obligation.

Why should one do that which is good? — Hyper

Correctly analysed, I don't think anyone should do what is good.

The use of the word "ought" implies guidelines externally put on us. So, okay, what guides us? I would say that belonging to the group is our biggest social motivator. — Questioner

That's how it seems to me too.

What is good is what we ought do, and what we ought do is what is good. — Banno

This seems wrong to me. I don't think I see the equivalence in usage.

What is good seems relative to a person's will - self-centred. What is good for one may not be good for another. Murdering is great for the murderer, shitty for the murdered's family.

What we ought to do seems relative to the will of others - other centred. We ought not murder because other people don't want us to.

Then there would still be gold in Boorara. It would be true that there was gold in Boorara. — Banno

Berkeley would agree with you - God perceives the gold. Bradley would agree with you. Panpsychist idealists like Sprigge would agree with you. Not that I am an idealist, consciousness alone is insufficient for a universe it seems to me.

Or by 'life' do you mean consciousness?

@Banno @Wayfarer

The missing foghorn between your ships passing in the night is that Banno thinks that idealism entails solipsism, unless I have misunderstood.

There is also inertia which has nothing to do with motivation, and is more biological/neurological than psychological and requires different remedies. Routines, appointments, promises to others.

There are also executive functioning issues like difficulty prioritising and analysing tasks.

All these can result in procrastinating, or look very similar to procrastination.

Do you think there is any psychological reason for an overblown style? — Swanty

Maybe in some cases but I have no idea and less interest. Philosophy is tricky enough without taking an interest in people's motivations. It drives me up the wall on this site when someone is accused of thinking something because of some character trait, as if that is relevant to the philosophy.

Awareness is also dependent on what we are aware of. — jkop

Is it possible (conceptually) to be aware of your own awareness, and nothing else?

Speaking very roughly, just to get started, realism holds that ...stuff... is independent of what we say about it; anti-realism, that it isn't. — Banno

Haven't you said the exact opposite of this in the past? Sorry to play spot-the-contradiction, I'm sure you can clear it up. I can't remember where, but haven't you said that what there is is determined by our words for them? Not our perceptions of them (that would be idealism), but our words, or perhaps the way we use language?

(For the record, you write interestingly, if ad nauseum, on this topic, and it's interesting because I am undecided)

EDIT: maybe @Michael stuff on intensional and extensional can help

About 30% of Americans are registered Republicans. There are a lot of independents. — frank

What does that mean? I don't think we have an equivalent in the UK. Presumably you can be a registered republican and still vote dem if you want? Is it like club membership, you pay an annual subscription and get a free sticker, badge and a scarf?

EDIT: Apparently in the UK only about 1.5% of the electorate were members of a political party.

Left-wing populism exists. — ssu

Thanks for explaining. I think I've only ever really heard right-wing populist rhetoric. (I'm in the UK not S. America).

Well educated people still think they can get a good job and the system works for them. — ssu

I too perceive a divide on lines of education. However I didn't see it in terms of jobs, I see it in terms of complexity. Non populist discourse tends to be complex and somewhat difficult, and recommends policies that entail change and uncertainty. Well educated people are likely to be more sympathetic to such messaging. Is that just me being a liberal elitist wanker? For the record, I'm not well off and have a low income!

But if a blue-collar worker in the rust-belt, the whole system seems to have forgotten you totally. — ssu

Are those people right? If so, how susceptible do you think they would be to more leftist populist rhetoric?

A Trump vote was anti-woke, pro police, pro immigration control, pro reduced taxes, pro reduced regulation, pro Israel, pro life, pro drilling for oil, among other things. — Hanover

Thanks, no doubt you are right. But what is the upshot of that in terms of the poll?

This poll tells us what the left believes the right believes. — Hanover

Oh you're absoutely right about that. I'm asking in the wrong place!

If the right told you the only reason you voted for Harris was because you didn't like Trump and because all you wanted was a woman, how might you respond? I think you'd say you voted Democrat because you are Democrat. — Hanover

That's really interesting, thank you. Actually I don't think I would. It really never occurs to me to vote according to party loyalty (but I am a UK citizen so that may be why - it might be more tribal in the US). If I were a US citizen, I would have voted tactically for the dems. I don't like the dems on policy grounds, and they are just as pro establishment as Trump and the Republican Party. But the Republicans are even worse. What I would like (in the UK and if I were a US citizen, in the US) is a proportional representation system that means I can vote for a green party, but neither the dems or republicans are going to propose that kind of radical voting reform.

A Trump vote was anti-woke, pro police, pro immigration control, pro reduced taxes, pro reduced regulation, pro Israel, pro life, pro drilling for oil, among other things.

But that's policy, not identity. But then you go on to say people voted because of their identity as republicans. It could be both of course, but you seem to be inconsistent as to which you consider more causal.

If the DNC would be populist, the democratic voters would fall for it just like all the Trump supporters. — ssu

Believe it or not, over 50% of the population voted Republican because they are Republican. — Hanover

These statements are very interesting, as they suggest that allegiance is to party not policy or personality. I hadn't considered party loyalty (like football team support) as a main cause of voting behaviour, which is dumb of me probably. Party loyalty is perhaps less of a thing in the UK.

@ssu As for DNC populism, what would that look like? I associate populism with right-wing politics typically, but I suppose you could have a left-wing version that encourages victimhood and dependency, blaming employers for everything, blaming ownership of capital for all ills. The trouble is that just doesn't seem like it would be popular!

Trump won on promises. — Fooloso4

Yes, that's how it seems to me. And promises are policy, even if they are not credible or detailed.

I think most Trump voters just don't take any of his faults seriously. — frank

Do you think that's because they don't believe he's as much of a scumbag as the corrupt dems and justice system make him out to be? Or is it because they they don't think his crimes and conduct are particularly relevant - they want someone who will do the right things, not be nice to everyone. Your post suggests perhaps both?

But that would be insane. Trump voters are mostly not insane. Therefore that explanation is false. It seems to me more credible that Trump won more on policy and not personality. Did the republicans simply make up democrat policies as strawmen, and then carpet bomb the media with it, resulting in a vote against the democrats (rather than for an odious criminal)? I don't know.

Yes to both questions. The GOP of Bush and the neoconservatives is largely over, with many of them now voting Democrat. I hope the Democrats can have the same evolution but voters can’t even have the same candidate everyone voted for in the primary. — NOS4A2

Thanks, that's interesting. I'm interested in your perception of Bernie Sanders. He comes across as strongly anti-establishment to me. Is that your perception?

I remember reading one of bishop Berkleys Q&A type platonic style dialogues and that was very clear. — Swanty

Yes, I think Berkeley and Wilde are great writers. Hume is famous for his prose (e.g. On the Standard of Taste) although I find it a bit overblown myself. Philosophers are a bit hit and miss in terms of writing styles.

EDIT: While a bit dull, ChatGPT does a fab job of making up nonsense but setting it out in a clear, transparent and readable style.

I like brevity and clarity, but not all writers want to be brief and clear, and that is their prerogative. It does not necessarily mean they are confused or uncertain. And uncertainty is perhaps a virtue rather than a vice in speculative investigations. Even a pretence of uncertainty helps engender productive dialogue. Sometimes brevity can go too far, ending up where there is simply not enough information to discern meaning unambiguously - many of @180 Proof's unfortunately end up like that, but maybe that is his intention. Occasionally 180 writes in a longer more conversational style and when he does so he is a superb writer. There are lots of economical and clear writers on the forum who get the balance right (or at least to my taste).

He took on both parties, destroyed them both, and ended many despicable political dynasties. But most of all the behavior of his opposition pushed me to support him. One has to oppose an evil movement like that. Some of the policies were an added bonus. — NOS4A2

That's really interesting thanks. I can understand that appeal. Do you see both major parties as a kind of pro status-quo, pro establishment interest, and Trump as a figure who can smash it up (to an extent)?

Are you strongly distinguishing Trump from the Republican party, or at least how the republican party was before Trump?

The majority respond to populist, easy answers. They're not going to understand or want to hear complicated proposals that aren't going to give them everything they want. So the side that gives them what they want is the side that is going to win.

A bit of pragmatism over principle shouldn't be ignored. — Michael

Oh, you got there first. Yes I suspect this is exactly right.

Hah! No, just the simple vague stuff. "I'll make you better off, we'll stop giving away American money to foreign counties, you can keep driving you cars and not feel guilty or judged, I'll keep foreigners away, all the things you are scared of I'll protect you from, all the things you want I'll give you."

That kind of policy. And it is policy, even if it is of the vaguest kind. The democrats didn't say any of that, they didn't compete on those grounds, nor did they effectively undermine Trump's simplistic message.

I think Trump may have won on policy. I'd be interested in what persuaded you.

Ar-Pharazon the Golden

Understood, thanks

explosive in the sense you have to disregard things you already accept — Cheshire

What sense of 'explosion' is being used here? Destruction or multiplication...?

What is LNC? Sorry, probably should know. Oh, Law of Non-Contradiction?

Oh, you mean anything follows from a contradiction! So explosion in that sense. Sorry, I think I've just caught up.

EDIT: So, what's that got to do with monism? The LNC isn't usually claimed to be a substance, even if it is foundational in some sense.

Alcohol affects my mind, but that doesn't imply that my mind is alcohol. My brain affects my mind. That doesn't imply my mind is my brain. — Clearbury

But it is one explanation. If we want to answer the question "How is it that when I drink alcohol (a physical thing) a mental thing results (feeling drunk)?" One answer is to say that the mental just is the physical, so there is no mystery, no interaction problem. Its a simple and obvious explanation. I agree with you that it is wrong (or perhaps partly wrong) but you asked for arguments, and this is one.

Why, without assuming that materialism is true, is that the best explanation? — Clearbury

It's monistic. Consider that we know there are physical things. Also consider that two fundamentally different kinds of thing cannot interact. Our minds are affected by physical things, therefore our minds must be physical too. So let's look around for physical objects (or functions thereof) that could be minds. A rock? Presumably not, because when a rock is struck I feel nothing, so the rock isn't my mind. A body? Well, not all of it, fingernails and some internal processes are not felt. But whenever we feel something there is always some correlation with brain activity. The simplest way to explain a correlation is identity, as one thing always occurs with itself. So it's a monistic and simple theory which fits the data, which are traditional hallmarks of a good theory.

I don't agree with it, but that's perhaps one main prima facie case for it.

Where's the evidence that the mind is the body? Without assuming that the mind is the body - which is question begging - what evidence is there that the mind is part of the body? — Clearbury

Things that affect the body affect the mind. For example, drinking alcohol changes what we feel. Construct a long list of such examples. Inference to the best explanation suggests that therefore the body is the mind, or perhaps the functions of the body is the mind.

Yes, doing what is good is doing what someone else wants

Yes I looked. It's not a single concept. Clearer concepts are submission and respect.

It's not a very clear concept.

Yes, I'm generally not a fan of the 'can do anything' version of omnipotence that just leads to paradoxes.

I'm not sure what worship is.

But why wouldn't an all powerful/knowing god not be able to take on the perspective of a (or any given) human and see suffering from that perspective? — schopenhauer1

I don't know, but maybe because in doing so it would cease to be God. If God isn't made of parts (as dogma has it) it has to do things wholly. So maybe God can take on the perspective of a human, but in doings so becomes human. I don't know. Theology is a bit guessy.

Yes. Let 'God' refer to the red cup in @Banno's cupboard. If there is a red cup in Banno's cupboard, then God exists.

Yes, I'm aware of the dilemma. But human suffering is only evil for humans, not God. No skin off his nose.

I'm not sure God is in a position to like or dislike anything, because it is omnipotent. God can love, or annihilate. Perhaps only finite powers can like and dislike, We can only like and dislike things that come to us from outside that are not under our control, or that we have only partial control over. Not sure though.