Moral goodness, as described in the OP, is actual perfection; which is not contingent on agency itself — Bob Ross
Bob, morality is by definition, historical convention, and common sense related to human actions. Do you not see that by redefining morality in this way you are completely altering its fundamental meaning? — Pantagruel
you are trying to describe a type of goodness that is related though different from moral goodness proper, and calling it "moral goodness" confuses your argument — Lionino
Goodness has two historical meanings: hypothetical and actual perfection. — Bob Ross
... simply an attempt at sorting out how one should behave in correspondence to how one can best align themselves with universal harmony and unity; and pragmatism then, in its most commonly used sense, is an attempt at understanding the best ways to achieve purposes ... — Bob Ross
Bob, morality is by definition, historical convention, and common sense related to human actions. Do you not see that by redefining morality in this way you are completely altering its fundamental meaning?
I gave you an example and you completely ignored it: please re-read my previous response. — Bob Ross
let me use a perhaps odd example. A calculator would be hypothetically perfect if my purpose for it is to hold up books and it is flawless at fulfilling this task. — Bob Ross
The calculator is actually perfect if it is in a state of 100% (flawless) self-harmony and self-unity—i.e., all the parts are in agreement and peace with the other parts. The calculator isn’t broken, it doesn’t have parts that oppose other parts in a manner that brings disunity, etc. — Bob Ross
I don't think you are quite understanding pragmatic goodness. It is perfection for some purpose. — Bob Ross
In terms of actual perfection, the clock is perfect (morally good) if it is in self-harmony and self-unity. — Bob Ross
I'm not so sure that you do see, cause then you'd understand boiling something down to dichotomies is a reduction of their true form down to a "dumb" stripped down version that is only useful for talking about, rather than making concrete observations as Goodness is more than just "pragmatic" and "moral" forces. There's ignorant goodness, beautiful goodness... all you've really done here is tell us about your own values on what you think is good, "moral and pragmatism."
Yet, Nietzsche would argue "moral" is likely fuel for resentment towards difference and not Goodness. And Nietzsche makes quite the compelling arguement for amoral goodness.
Sure Goodness contains aspects of pragmatism and moral, but those aren't the only two factors of Goodness, just like I'm more than merely two factors.
"Hypothetical and Actual... Pragmatic and Moral... High and Low" why not left and right? Oh right because perhaps for you ranking is up and down vs left and right.
I do not think history supports this claim. Both of the terms, goodness and perfection, have various meanings. You move from a claim about the historical meaning to a meaning you favor. In the middle is a questionable assertion of what morality is based on what you claim to be its its "most commonly used sense":
An argument can be made that morality is a response to the lack of universal harmony and unity. It is because there is no actual perfection in the world that we must choose and act so as to attain and maintain what we value, and that in our imperfect world these values may conflict with those of others.
Some believe that to be moral is to be obedient to a higher power and so regard moral deliberation as immoral since it wrongly puts the individual in a position of authority.
What does universal harmony mean? In pursuit of universal harmony do I confer equal moral standing to humans and rats? Do I allow rats to live in my home? Do I allow every human beings who may want to live in my home?
I think the problem you might be running into here Bob is the fact that "good" is a broad word that is highly contextual. Its kind of like debating "tree". Good has multiple contextual meanings like: Happy, positive, perfection, not bad, moral connotations, etc. Perhaps a better focus to the thread would be harmony and unity. How are harmony and unity moral goals, and what is the difference between the ideal and real for example.
Morality is not conventionally nor historically only about human actions. The vast majority of human beings have been, historically speaking, moral realists; and they believed in The Good (i.e., an objective goodness) which is independent of any stance a subject may have on the matter. To think that these moral facts are only about human actions is an incredibly narrow interpretation of morality. — Bob Ross
when I say that ‘goodness’ boils down to two categories historically, I do not mean that historically people recognized with full clarity these two categories but, rather, their notions of goodness do, nevertheless, in fact, boil down thereto. — Bob Ross
Universal harmony is just a state whereof everything is living and existing peacefully; which includes everything. — Bob Ross
I don’t think any person of good character would disagree that ideally we should not eat other animals ... — Bob Ross
...but whether or not we can to survive is a separate question. — Bob Ross
I think that, when the dust settles, goodness does boil down to the two categories described in the OP. I think the 'highly contextual' aspect you are noting is really just due to people's hazy notions of what is good, and what goodness is, rather than a property of goodness itself. — Bob Ross
I think this is just a strange way of defining the idea of flawless. You may as well say that perfection is an erect penis flawlessly being used for hanging up a dressing gown.
What benefit does the word prefect bring you here? Does it not just mean 'working as intended'?
The moment it is called perfection it suggests the goodness is far from pragmatic and constitutes that which cannot be improved upon.
I'm assuming you are joking about a clock being morally good, with self-unity, etc.
Universal harmony is just a state whereof everything is living and existing peacefully; which includes everything. — Bob Ross
This is the opposite of what we find through most of history!
I don’t think any person of good character would disagree that ideally we should not eat other animals ... — Bob Ross
Where is the historical evidence to back this up?
...even though they may have never recognized with with such refinement nor were capable of bringing it to its highest form: universality. — Bob Ross
Anyone who thinks that it is morally permissible to kill and eat an animal for purely trivial reasons — Bob Ross
but whether or not we can to survive is a separate question. — Bob Ross
Your definitions aren't bad as a general, practical notion; but will never stand up to scrutinous refinement in ethics. — Bob Ross
I wonder if it is simple as that. Who judges what is moral or immoral? If someone with power and authority comes along, and says to you cutting grass in the winter is bad moral, therefore you are morally bad, then is the authority morally good, and are you morally bad?Being 'moral' or 'immoral' is a property of something that is good, not vice-versa. The properties of 'being moral' and 'being immoral' are extensions of 'being good' or 'being bad'. — Bob Ross
I didn't say that I disagreed with the OP. I was wondering if goodness is an absolute concept. I mean is there such a thing as absolute goodness?I outlined this in the OP: what did you disagree with? Actual perfection isn't 'goodness for someone', it is perfection as it is in-itself. — Bob Ross
With all due respect: prove it. Respond to the historical examples I just gave. — Bob Ross
Aristotle's eudaimonia -- the purpose of humans is eudaimonia.and the latter is perfection in-itself (i.e., a good organism, clock, phone, plant, etc. is one which is in harmony and unity with itself). — Bob Ross
Goodness has two historical meanings: hypothetical and actual perfection. The former is perfection for (i.e., utility towards) some purpose (e.g., a good clock is a clock that can tell the time, a good car can transport things, a good calculator can perform mathematical calculations, etc.); and the latter is perfection in-itself (i.e., a good organism, clock, phone, plant, etc. is one which is in harmony and unity with itself). The former is pragmatic goodness; and the latter moral goodness. — Bob Ross
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.