Unfortunately Goodness stemming from the term God (hence coming from perfection) is post the origins of the concept of "Good."
We can see, that historically, the origins of goodness were deeply entwined with social status, power dynamics, and subjective perceptions of the aristocracy, rather than with any abstract or objective standards of perfection.
Regardless this is more than enough to show your binary approach is ham-fisted and cherry-picked at best.
There is of course a general usefulness to reduce something to binary opposites, especially in use for discussion, but it most certainly is an inaccurate representation of the many vary degrees and gradations of reality.
hypothetical and actual) perfection is (are) identical to goodness (as a property); and so I would respond with, yes, something is 100% good only when it is 100% perfect (whether that be qua utility or qua perfection). — Bob Ross
It is really difficult to have a productive conversation if you cannot contend with my responses. I am not sure how to proceed from here, but, then again, it seems like you aren't interested in having any conversation about it (and if that is the case, then we can end our conversation here: no problem). — Bob Ross
Ok Bob. How does the perfect nuclear weapon fit into your schema? Since human beings are arguably impairing the perfect balance of our eco-sphere, utilizing the perfect nuclear weapon to erase humanity would seem to be an ideal example of goodness. — Pantagruel
That is precisely where I was going. You took the words right out of my mouth ;) — Beverley
Yes, I kind of figured. It was only a matter of time. — Pantagruel
Goodness has two historical meanings: hypothetical and actual perfection. The former is perfection for (i.e., utility towards) some purpose...the latter is perfection in-itself — Bob Ross
It is really difficult to have a productive conversation if you cannot contend with my responses. I am not sure how to proceed from here, but, then again, it seems like you aren't interested in having any conversation about it (and if that is the case, then we can end our conversation here: no problem).
— Bob Ross
Ok Bob. How does the perfect nuclear weapon fit into your schema? Since human beings are arguably impairing the perfect balance of our eco-sphere, utilizing the perfect nuclear weapon to erase humanity would seem to be an ideal example of goodness. — Pantagruel
The problem is that there will always be holes in philosophical ideas, some more than others. — Beverley
Ok Bob. How does the perfect nuclear weapon fit into your schema? Since human beings are arguably impairing the perfect balance of our eco-sphere, utilizing the perfect nuclear weapon to erase humanity would seem to be an ideal example of goodness.
All else not being equal, a nuclear weapon is not something that would be in the best of possible worlds because it is anti-thetical to universal harmony — Bob Ross
I find this division to be problematic. I agree that perfection of a single purpose (really not a thing per say to me) can be understood at least. I call that functional worthiness.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
And I would surmise that this example of a harmonious perfection is incorrect. That is to say, there is no lapse in perfection within any state of reality. We already have the potential for perfection, moral or absolute perfection, now. It is a tautology that this perfection is all that there is, really.For those who cannot fathom perfection as it is in-itself, simply imagine a wild jungle in complete disarray, everything trying to impede on everything else, and now imagine a jungle in which everything is in complete harmony and unity: the former is in a state of absolute (actual) imperfection, and the latter in a state of absolute (actual) perfection—it is not perfection relative to some goal or purpose endowed unto it by a subject, nay, it is perfect qua perfection (viz., perfection in terms of solely what it is in-itself). — Bob Ross
I disagree entirely.Each of the two types of goodness has within them higher and lower goodness, each according to their contextual size (viz., a good which is about a smaller context is lower than one which is about a larger context). The lowest pragmatic good is particular utility (i.e., what is perfect for this purpose) and the highest is universal utility (i.e., what is perfect for every purpose); the lowest moral good is particular harmony and unity (i.e., that this is perfect) and the highest is universal harmony and unity (i.e., that everything is perfect). — Bob Ross
This is incorrect to me. Hypothetical is actual to me. Imagination is real. State changes are actually almost impossible to imagine if they are impossible really. Therefore they are not impossible, just improbable. Pragmatism properly expressed is the limit as intent approaches idealism. This has the proper ascetic as asymptotes extend into infinity showing the relative difficulty of perfection.Moral goodness is higher than pragmatic goodness because it deals with actual (as opposed to hypothetical) perfection; — Bob Ross
This is a false equivalence. Egoism for the good is or can be perfectly good. So say ego alone is not immoral. This is a truism with goodness that is confusing to many. Biased for the good is good. Bias for anything no good is 'evil'. This truth makes things as tricky as they really are because so many incorrect interpretations of what is good and evil abound.and the highest moral good is universal harmony and unity (and this is why altruism morally better than egoism). — Bob Ross
As you probably know, I do not like the term morality used this way. If morality is objective, and I believe it is, then one must learn to speak in terms of morality and what we do. We do not do morality. People do not have morals at all. They have immoral beliefs only. That is true. The question is not if the belief is immoral because it is. No one and no one belief is perfect. It is in the true nature of perfection to remain elusive and unreachable. So discussing belief (and fact also since facts are only a subset of beliefs) is discussing immorality. Notice how a discussion that starts out properly discussing moral agents immorality only, not their morality, is always more correct. I highly recommend we change to that way of speaking and writing about it to avoid other obvious errors.Morality, then, in its most commonly used sense, is 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 (even if they purposes are only granted for the sake of deriving those best means) so that one has readily at their disposal the best means of achieving any purpose. — Bob Ross
We agree that the destination of perfection is state independent. Yes. But that is not helpful when you suggest we can be objective. We cannot be objective. We are not perfect. So all assertions, all beliefs, all facts, are immoral as stated and always slightly wrong. It is again better to speak or write in this way, than it is to suggest a comforting lie to people, that they can get to objectivity or perfection. No, that is hubris and makes us all prone to more error.Neither studies [of pragmatism nor morality] are, when understood as described hereon, non-objective: the best means of achieving a purpose (or purposes) and the best means of achieving (actual) perfection are both stance-independent. — Bob Ross
I disagree. These studies may try to be objective but we must admit that they will fail. Pragmatism is the fear-based cowardice that demands a short-cut to the effort required for moral choice. This is the efficient demand of fear and it is foolish. You say it is essential. It is not.These studies are as objective as they come, and are both essential to practical life: morality being essential to living a good life, and pragmatism being essential to achieving that good life. — Bob Ross
These are heinous Pragmatic lies (of course only in my opinion).Politically, a society centered on pragmatic goodness will tend towards anarchism (i.e., each man is given, ideally, the knowledge of and power to achieve his own ends) and a society centered on moral goodness will tend towards democracy (i.e., each man is given, ideally, equal representation and liberties, but also duties to their fellow man to uphold a harmonious and united state). — Bob Ross
This is not true either.Goodness is not normative: it is the property of having hypothetical or actual perfection. Normativity arises out of the nature of subjects: cognition and conation supply something new to reality—the assessment of or desire for how things should be (as opposed to how they are). Moral goodness, for example, is just the state of being in self-harmony and self-unity: it does not indicate itself whether something should be in that state. It is up to subjects to choose what should be, and a (morally) good man simply chooses that things should be (morally) good. — Bob Ross
Universal harmony is just a state whereof everything is living and existing peacefully; which includes everything.
However, as you noted correctly, it is an ideal and may not be every actualizable down to the T; and we are far from it and we have limited resources; so it is perfectly reasonable to prioritize life over non-life, humans over other animals, etc. to try to progress towards it as best we can. — Bob Ross
Can you demonstrate an instantiation of perfection about which we can all agree upon so that I can see what perfection 'looks' like? — Tom Storm
Still no evidence of one, at least that fits with what I've asked for below (which I think is what you were also looking for.)I would be interested in your example of perfection. — Tom Storm
Natural systems are in a constant process of evolution and change, so there is never any criterion for preferring one configuration over another, let alone a perspective from which to apply it. — Pantagruel
You cannot just say there is moral goodness which is perfect and morally good, and no one really knows what the goodness is without the considerations. — Corvus
a jungle in which everything is in complete harmony and unity — Bob Ross
As I put it, however, it is not clear that this is anti-thetical to universal harmony. The human race is arguably more anti-thetical to universal harmony than would be its elimination.
But how can we progress towards something that MAY be possible, but that we can see no real example of in the world in which we live?
Or how is this any different from such skeptics’ suggestions of, for example, the world being controlled by pink and yellow spotted beings, which are controlling our minds from brains stored in vats?
But if we all woke up one day and everything was working in perfect harmony, would we all just automatically, magically know?
But if we were all perfect, why would we even have to know anything?
Bring me back varying levels of imperfection, and with it the joy of working bloody hard against all odds and seeing improvements and feeling a sense of real achievement.
Can you demonstrate an instantiation of perfection about which we can all agree upon so that I can see what perfection 'looks' like? — Tom Storm
I am pretty sure the answer to that was 'no'.
I would be interested in your example of perfection. — Tom Storm
Still no evidence of one, at least that fits with what I've asked for below (which I think is what you were also looking for.)
I suggest that you read the entirety of me and Tom Storm’s interaction, because I gave several. — Bob Ross
Have you not seen something that is in an optimal degree of self-harmony and self-unity such that its parts produce a task incredibly efficiently? — Bob Ross
Have you not experienced a state of peace between things, as opposed to conflict and violence? — Bob Ross
Not to mention, some of them are just nonsense with no real evidence for them (such a the pink and yellow spotted beings); which is clearly not the case with my analysis of moral goodness. — Bob Ross
Most people, I think, are able to comprehend what a state of harmony and unity is, just as much as what a spots of yellow and pink are. — Bob Ross
One needs knowledge to act. In a world full of subjects with universal harmony and unity, actions still exist. Subjects are still doing things. — Bob Ross
but this doesn’t mean we should strive for imperfection — Bob Ross
The human race, being capable of the greatest capacities of rational behavior, are not more anti-thetical to universal harmony; in fact, they are essential to upholding and enacting such a world. — Bob Ross
maybe bombing the Nazis pans out as a good action — Bob Ross
I did see you giving an example of a calculator and a jungle, but i couldn't find an example where you explained how each part of it was in harmony. I don't think this would be possible, and that is the problem.
…
But there is nothing that is PERFECTLY efficient and harmonious, and this is what your definition stipulated.
This is why it is impossible to describe this kind of total harmony, because we only have a vague idea of what it would be, as we have never experienced it in real life.
But unless you can see an example of this in real life, it is possible that it does not exist, or it is as likely to exist as the pink and yellow spotted beings. You are going into the realm of all things that MAY be possible, which could be anything, including pink and yellow spotted beings. This idea of something being in perfect harmony could simply be something you made up in your head.
Sure, we may know what harmony and unity is, but not PERFECT harmony and unity.
What would we need to do if everything was perfect?
But i seriously doubt we will ever reach perfection, if it is even something that exists, or could exist.
So you are assuming that rationality has a universal value
What about aesthetics? What about sentimentality? What about the inherent value of free-will? Perhaps the inherent value of free-will is the culmination of "harmonious value" - qua the material product of the evolutionary process.
In which case, the most harmonious universe is actually the one filled with the greatest degree freedom.
More abstractly — Bob Ross
I am a supporter of the US (by-at-large) — Bob Ross
That's going to depend — Bob Ross
Firstly, the examples I gave are examples of actual perfection; but they do not exemplify necessarily anything in the actual world. — Bob Ross
My response to this is to note that this is an ideal and, as such, does not need to be 100% actualizable to be impactful in ethics. Every major ethical theory, and any worth any salt, are driven, at their core, by ideals and not the limitations of the foreseeable, actual world. — Bob Ross
I just do not see any examples of perfection in real life, and this makes me think that they do not exist, which I don't think is unreasonable. Now of course, I could be wrong. But so could you. Which person would i prefer to be wrong? — Beverley
Strange that to make an abstract point you had to use the industrial mass murder of Europeans as an example, instead of something like euthanising serial killers or castrating rapists.
I wonder why. Perhaps the same reason why such a moral perversion as the hypothetical and historical nuking of civilians is relativised. I said strange but I was not shocked at all; the longer I live the better I see what Evola meant with racial soul.
Isn't it your position that morality is objective? So how does it depend? If morality refers to a verifiable fact outside of the mind (meaning of objective), surely it does not depend on opinion, ¿no?
It seems sufficiently transparent to me that either both nuking Germans and running a plane into the twin towers is moral (under this hypothetical), or neither are moral, or morality is not objective.
More abstractly, the point is that the goal is to try to work towards universal harmony and unity; and to do so in a manner that ensures its preservation. If you believe that bombing the twin towers does this, then, in principle, yes it would be morally good. I just don't believe that is the case.
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.