This is analogous to if there was an OP asking where to begin studying what is red, and your response is to say “analyze red trucks”. One should not begin with an analysis of what can be predicated to be red (like a red truck)—viz., happiness—but rather what does it mean for something, in principle, to be red at all? That’s where begin. — Bob Ross


Your response was to say:

You are still missing the point. I never said happiness is Good. I said, actions which brings happiness is Good. — Corvus


Thereby trying to evade my critique by providing the rejoinder that it was a mischaracterization of your view (because you do not believe happiness is good). I, then, responded with: — Bob Ross

This is not true. This is your distortion on my point. I wrote about "happiness is not good, but what brings happiness is good". That doesn't mean happiness is not good quality of mind. It means happiness is NOT IDENTICAL TO good. Happiness and good are not the same thing. Happiness is a mental state and Good is a moral value which can cause happiness.

I am not sure if you were confused between happiness and Good, or your writing was intentional distortion on my points.

For the concept of Red, you don't learn the concept of Red by analysing what red means. You learn what red means by looking and seeing the red objects. So here is another gross misunderstanding on your part.

Just like the concept of red, you don't learn what the concept of Good is by analysing it. You learn the concept of Good, by seeing the good acts of humans in the moral situations.

I think I already wrote in my previous post somewhere. I looked into many philosophers in history for their idea of moral good. They are different, and there is not much content in the description what moral good is.

For example, Spinoza said moral good is pleasure, evil is pain. And Kant must have said something different, so did Leibniz etc etc. I was not quite sure why you insisted on starting defining Good in building someone's moral code. That doesn't sound like making sense at all. Even if the OP's title is about How to define Moral Good, you should have said moral good is undefinable, like Moore said 100 years ago.

I do see now how this Nihilsum doesn't actually provide anything for thought for lets say theoretical abstraction because it has no base at all, thus not very 'useful' or positing anything to our being and not. I also don't even think I understand it anymore or if I did, I think so but it expanded itself. — mlles

You need the concrete logical arguments with evidence based on the rational reasoning to put forward your ideas. But if you deny the logic and reasoning, then you have no feet to stand on to make your ideas and claim objective and acceptable.

Thereby trying to evade my critique by providing the rejoinder that it was a mischaracterization of your view (because you do not believe happiness is good). I, then, responded with: — Bob Ross

This sounds incredibly obtuse and irrelevant. My point was defining good wouldn't make one morally good, or more morally sensitive person. Rather, being able to reason what morally good actions are in the real life situations, which brings happiness to all parties would be more practical way to be morally apt person.

You are talking about something totally different in some other planet, from what I am talking about.

E.g., "where did you get that idea?": I don't know, maybe when you literally said it? — Bob Ross

Happiness is a state of mind, which is the purpose of life. This idea is from Aristotle, which inspired me to follow.

My point is simple, and precise. There is not much complication there.
Morally good actions bring happiness to all parties involved.
Happiness is a state of mind, which is the purpose of life.

You could further analyse what happiness is. We could say happiness is a mental state of mind, which is good and satisfactory. Good here is different from moral good of course. A good mental state is the opposite of a bad or unpleasant mental state, which is totally different from moral good.

I couldn't believe when you asked, can happiness be not good. I don't think I have implied or suggested that happiness is not good. Happiness is always good.
Good here is the quality of the mental state, which is happiness.

Moral good is the quality or value of some human actions when performed out of the moral duties and practical reasoning.

By existing in this paradoxical ‘state,’ the Nihilsum forces us to rethink ontological frameworks, where opposites are often required to be mutually exclusive. — mlles

Could you give some real life examples of such existences in the real world?

Your comments speak for themselves: — Bob Ross

It was a bit disappointing to see your reaction rejecting my replies outright without much substance on your counter argument, and your uncorroborated accusation on my posts as a troll.

You did: are you trying to troll me? That’s literally what I responded to, when you said: — Bob Ross

From my observations in the past,
1. The accuser of troll is the genuine troll.
2. The accuser has nothing substantial to contribute to the topic. (ran out of ideas or knowledge)
3. The accuser's main purpose for his postings were question begging, rather than genuine interest in the topic.
4. The accuser is in some deep misunderstanding on the world and others.

This explains exactly why your position is so muddied and convoluted. Instead of providing a substantive response, you just noted that you have absolutely no clue what I am saying. — Bob Ross

You seem to have some fixed ideas of your own on all these questions. But you asked the questions just for the question begging purposes, it appears. It seems to be the case that your questions were not to clarify the points, but to negate the replies as soon as they were sent to you. They are the typical case of question begging.

You did: are you trying to troll me? That’s literally what I responded to, when you said: — Bob Ross

I was explaining to your question. When you say good actions make you happy, then the good actions were the cause for your happiness. You can be happy without any cause at all from your emotional state of the day. Hence good can be many different things depending on how you use it in the different situation.

You seem to be too over sensitive on reading the philosophical explanations, which are meant to offer you the simple explanations to your questions. It could be the case that you might be injecting too much emotions into the interactions on what supposed to be objective and rational discussions.

the Nihilsum provides a lens through which we can reconsider existence and the limits of logic. — mlles

What does existence and being mean under the Nihilsum?

and the limits of logic — mlles

What does the Nihilsum propose the solution for the problem?

So, under your view, it is good to do things that make you happy; but not good to be happy? — Bob Ross

If it is good to do things that make you happy, then you are good to be happy. There are many different ways good can be used.

My critique did not presuppose that there is an abstract object of The Good. Predicating happiness as being good is analogous to predicating actions (that produce happiness) as being good. You can just swap the parts where I said “happiness is good” for “actions which bring about happiness are good” in my critique, and it all still stands. — Bob Ross

You seem to be trying to make things more complicated than necessary here.

That is a non-sequiture. Moore is talking about the property of goodness, just like you. Moore is not saying that goodness is undefinable because there is no abstract object for it. — Bob Ross

I was pointing out what looks like the source of your misunderstanding.

That implies happiness is a good thing; which you denied above. — Bob Ross

Where did you get the idea? :D Who on earth would deny happiness is good? Happiness is the purpose of life, according to Aristotle.

“Good” is the concept of, roughly speaking, what ought to be: what you just described is the concept of ‘moral good’. — Bob Ross

I was looking into various philosophers' concept of Good, but there weren't much in them. One thing noticeable was that the concept of Good was all different in the different philosophers. Beginning with the concept of Good seems to be a not good idea in studying Ethics. Maybe you could come up with establishing the concept in the middle or later stage of reading up Ethics, if it is your topic of interest.

You don’t think that it may be, under certain circumstances, immoral to go out for a walk? — Bob Ross

Depending on the situation, it could be. It was just a simple example to help you understand the principle.

It is putting the cart before the horse to begin with what can be predicated to be good, when one hasn’t analyzed what goodness is itself. Do you disagree? — Bob Ross

Yes I disagree. The horse want to have a free run by himself in the field, but you keep insisting putting the cart onto him.

Good cannot be found until you have performed some actions first.

Not all actions are moral actions of course. If you went out for a walk or dropped off by the shop, that is not moral action category. But if you helped out an elderly crossing the busy road for her safety, then it is an action performed in moral category.

From the practical reasoning, you would have known the action was morally good. It brought happiness to all the parties involved in the action, and it would be judged as morally good when the action was performed out of pure duty to bring happiness to the society, the elderly and yourself. This is how moral good operates and means. There is no some matter called Good out there for you to define what it is.

This was my main point that you keep dismissing without any response: happiness is good is not a description whatsoever of what goodness is. It is not an analysis of the metaphysics of goodness. When you say it “was [a] good enough definition”, that is patently false; because it was not a “definition” in any of the two senses of the term that I used before (or anyone uses). — Bob Ross

You are still missing the point. I never said happiness is Good. I said, actions which brings happiness is Good.

I thought my point in my previous posts were clear. Good is not an entity. It is property or quality. There is no such a thing called Good. So Moore was right, it is undefinable.

Only human actions are good or not good based on the fact that whether the actions brought happiness to the society, the parties involved and the agent.

Until actions are performed, and analysied based on the above criteria, there is no such thing as Good. Good is the quality of some human actions.

Show me where I ever said that we can “define” good in this sense. Never once. I even referred you to an earlier post I made where I explicitly stated that the concept of good is absolutely simple and cannot be properly defined. — Bob Ross

OK, it is not an important point anyway. Just was trying to clarify the murky points you raised in this thread. It is not the main focus of this OP either.

I feel that my explanation for Good as the actions which brings happiness to all involved parties meeting at the mid point was good enough definition, if you really insist that one must start from a concept of Good.

If you feel that is the way you want go, and wish to present your concept of Good, by all means, go ahead after consulting the OP on the matter. I will stand aside, and add my opinion, if any crops up.

Where did Moore say that?

I found my old copy PE, and had a quick scan of the book. Moore says something like this,

"Who right minded folk would ask what Good is unless for lexicographical purpose? .... Good is good. It is undefinable." (PE, pp.6)

You seem to think Moore had started with a concept of Good in PE, which is a misunderstanding of the original text in PE.

I have maintained from the beginning of this discussion thread that I think Moore was right that good is an absolutely primitive and simple concept. — Bob Ross

Your writing above seems to suggest Good is definable from what Moore had said about Good. Good is an absolutely primitive and simple concept. When Moore said Good is an absolutely primitive and simple concept, he didn't mean that it is a definition of Good. He was just telling about the nature of Good.

How can you define good when it is not definable? It seems to suggest you don't understand what you have been maintaining, and are self negating yourself.

The issue does not seem to be what kind of a thing the mind is. It does not matter for simplicity's sake whether minds are material or immaterial. What make the thesis simple is that only one kind of a thing is posited - whatever kind of a thing a mind is - and only one instance of that kind of thing is posited. — Clearbury

Another problem with disembodied mind is that, it is devoid of all the sensory perceptions, which is the source of thoughts, feelings and sensations on the external world. It has no linguistic apparatus either which is closely linked to logic and reasoning. All it could do is dreaming, but dreaming is only possible via brain. With no bodily organs available to the mind, we wonder how it could even dream, imagine or even have illusions and hallucination.

The OP title says it is "an evolutionary defense", hence some counter arguments is being presented against the OP's assumptions.

Nothing was corrected about what I said: I refer you back to my response. I have maintained the same position throughout this discussion, and you are merely confused about Moore and my claims (as they relate thereto) because you haven't read him. — Bob Ross

In fact, you are absolutely right that he considered it an absolutely simple and primitive concept; and I am inclined to agree with him on that point. — Bob Ross

Well you have agreed with my point succinctly in your post, but then for some mysterious reasons you seem to have changed your mind again.

Now I agree, that this discussion is a waste of time.

:roll: I find it interesting that the person who has never read Moore, who doesn't see a need to, thinks they are understand Moore better than someone who actually has. — Bob Ross

It seems to be the case, that your reading the original text was not very through or accurate. The academic commentaries are for helping you to understand the original texts better, and they could correct the misunderstandings you make from your readings on the original texts. They are not being written so that they can be ignored or treated as not useful. Therefore I would advise you not to ignore the academic commentaries and introductions to the topics and original texts.

This conversation is a waste of my time. — Bob Ross

I thought it was not a waste of time at all, because it helped someone to correct his misunderstanding on Moore. :D

I think you have missed the point. Posits are not expalined, that's what makes them posits. Positing two things is more complicated than positing one, other things being equal. thus, I posit one thing - a mind - and I see how far I can go with it. — Clearbury

Your idea of mind seem to be coming from some sort of dualism. That's fine. But my idea of mind is based on the mind as a function of body. That means mind without body is impossible. As soon as body dies, mind dies also by necessity.

In this situation, the question naturally arises, and need to be explained i.e. how mind can exist and operate without body. This is a quite complicated process I would imagine.

If the mind without body arguments keeps going on without clearing the inevitable question first, then it would sound like a paranormal rants. We want to avoid that.

In fact, you are absolutely right that he considered it an absolutely simple and primitive concept; and I am inclined to agree with him on that point. — Bob Ross

It is good that you admit your misunderstanding Moore, and your claim was wrong. :cool:

“Ethics since 1900” was not written by Moore. If you want to understand Moore, then you need to read The Principia Ethica: — Bob Ross

Warnock was a professor of Philosophy, and the book is a good introduction to modern Ethics. I don't think you need to read The PE, in order to understand Moore, unless you are specializing in his Ethics.

That’s all fine: the OP is about where should a person start. Do you think they should just skip over asking themselves “is good definable?”? Do you just want them to skip that step?!? — Bob Ross

I am easy with that. If you think the concept of Good is intensely relevant to the topic, by all means carry on with unfolding and elaborating on it. Your question on whether to skip the step should be asked to the OP, not me.

For example, the claim that, other things being equal, we have reason to believe a simpler thesis is true, is itself a self-evident truth of reason (or 'apparent' one, as we shouldn't rule out the possiblity it may be false). So, the assumption that the simpler thesis is true is more reasonable than the assumption that the more complicated theory is default true. — Clearbury

Mind without physical body assumption is not simpler than mind with body, because you must explain on how the mind ended up with no body. How can mind operate without body is far more complicated than starting with mind with body which is empirically and logically natural and sound.

And your response to them was to suggest starting with analyzing happiness; when that is clearly not a good starting point for metaethics. — Bob Ross

I don't think I said to analyze happiness. I said what brings happiness to all parties involved is good. So it was an inferred definition of Good.

If you ever read any Ethics book, most of them start from the story of Socrates who asked, "How should we live?". He doesn't talk about what good is. No one really starts with what good is. Because like Moore said, and I agreed, good is not an entity. It is a property and quality. It is not possible to define what good is, according to Moore.

I was talking about the concept of good, and of which one must have an understanding of before they can accurately assess what can be predicated to have it. This is a classic mistake that Moore rightly points out: ethics starts not with what is good, but what goodness even refers to---whereas, most people do it in the opposite order (or merely engage in the latter). — Bob Ross

Where did Moore say that? From my memory, Moore said it is impossible to define what good is, and one must start from what one ought to do from the knowledge of what morally good actions are, rather than asking what good is. (Ethics since 1900, by M. Warnock)

If it is from the actual reference from the original texts and academic commentaries on these points, you should indicate the source of the reference with your claims.

You misunderstand me: the concept of good refers to whatever 'good' means, not what or how one can predicate something to have it. Viz., the concept of value does not refer to what may be valuable. One must first understand, explicitly, what 'value' even means, not just as a word but as a concept, to determine what has it. — Bob Ross

You seem to be unaware of the fact that there are hundreds of different concepts of moral good depending on which theory you are looking at. Whatever definition you choose as your definition, it wouldn't be the only one, and definitely not the final one either.

I have given out the inferred definition from Aristotle's idea. It is clearly saying what moral good is, even if it sounds indirect and informal.

It wouldn't be right to force down a randomly selected concept of moral good to someone who is looking for a basic method to build the moral code.

Yes, I think simplicity demands it must be a mind without a physical body, as a physical body would be less simple than a mind that had no body. — Clearbury

The OP is based on the assumption, it claims, but assumptions are only accepted as reasonable and intelligible when it makes sense or is supported by evidence.

Assuming mind without physical body is not a reasonable assumption, when it is impossible to imagine mind without its physical body empirically, medically, biologically, and scientifically.

I was talking about the concept of good, and of which one must have an understanding of before they can accurately assess what can be predicated to have it. This is a classic mistake that Moore rightly points out: ethics starts not with what is good, but what goodness even refers to---whereas, most people do it in the opposite order (or merely engage in the latter). — Bob Ross

If you read my post again, it would be clear what the concept of moral good is from Aristotle. Good is a quality or property of actions which brings happiness to all parties involved.

If you are interested in the wider concepts of good, there are plenty available on internet searches. But is the OP asking for the concept of Good in general? It doesn't appear to be. The OP asks where to begin

to build my own set of rules and values — Matias Isoo

.

Discussing all the concepts of Good by different philosophers and systems in history would be too general, and not very relevant to the OP's question. Perhaps it could be a separate thread of its own?

Objectivity is not an issue of someone listening to or seeing one's talking about something. Objectivity means that an idea or proposition is based on the normativity and rationality.

Just like the world, God is perceived in different ways to mind.

When one sees God in his dreams, illusion or hallucination, it is a Mind-Created God.

When one reads about God in the Bible or Philosophical texts, and think about the God, it is an abstract God, or Metaphysical God.

When one goes into the computer, types GOD on the keyboard, GOD appears on the screen visible and readable, then it is a physical or material God. It is the most material and physical way one can get to God.

Sure, just giving out a counter argument against your argument. :)

Pleasure is associated with sin - take greed for example - the want for more of something(some pleasurable source). — Barkon

One example of greed is not a sufficient reason for all pleasure senses to be defined as sin. Pleasure senses are also vital factor in survival for the bodily and psychological well-being for the biological agents.

I wouldn't even call God under the meaning I have subjected it to is even abstract at all — Barkon

When you said, "opposite of sin is God", at first glance, it sounds abstract. People would wonder how God could be opposite of sin? But when they think about it further, they immediately would realise that is nonsense, illogical and unintelligible. Opposite of sin could be many different things. No one really would know what you mean by the statement. Defining God is identical with opposite of sin, and saying God is proven sounded absurd.

1. It doesn't make any less sense it being abstract, must we fear the abstract? — Barkon

When it is abstract, it must be also intelligible or logical supporting the abstractness. Being abstract, unintelligible and illogical all at once is not acceptable.

2. I never said pleasure sense is all negative, I said it has negative associations. — Barkon

The problem here is that you associated pleasure sense with sin, which is nonsense.

God is a concept in the bible, and in the bible it says "sin is opposite to God". I'm just putting 2 and 2 together. Nothing unintelligible about it, — Barkon

Some parts of the bible need sensible interpretation using your reasoning. You cannot make up your own subjective claims using the word by word citation from the bible, and say it says in the Bible so it must be true. Remember only a statement or proposition can be true or false, when it corresponds to the fact in the real world.

When you say, Sin is opposite to God, it sounds so abstract, ambiguous and empty, no one will understand what you mean.

The concept of sin changes through time and cultures in the world, and the pleasure senses are not regarded all negative as you try to make out.

Sin is opposite to God. — Barkon

It sounds like a grammatical mistake in the statement. God doesn't like sin, or God doesn't approve sin sounds more intelligible. Sin is opposite to God sounds unintelligible.

These things can happen, so there is God proven. — Barkon

God cannot be proven by the unintelligible, groundless and illogical statements.

God is Being Itself, that for whom essence and existence are identical. — Bodhy

What do you mean by Being itself? How can essence and existence be identical?

Why would they do that? They need to first understanding what it means for something to be good, then explore what is good. You are having them skip vital steps here. — Bob Ross

Good is not an entity itself. Good is a quality. At closest Good could be happiness, but it is not exactly the same.

So I decide to build my own set of rules and values, this is my first attempt and I will need your help, so where should I begin? What question should I make? — Matias Isoo

Begin at looking what brings happiness. Happiness not just for you, but for the others who are involved as well. The idea is from Aristotle. Read Ethics by Aristotle.

He says, the purpose of human life is happiness. What makes us happy? Not just one party, but the other party involved. Whatever makes and brings happiness to all parties is Good, according to him.

Sometimes it is tricky to make everyone happy. In that case, everyone has to meet in the mid point where they find happiness. Achieving that, is Good.

If your loved one lost eyes, and lost sight. You give him / her your eyes sounds doing good. But you lose your sight. That is good for him / her, but it is not good for you. The mid point is not met. It is NOT Good.

You must rather take him / her to the eye doctor to repair the eye to regain the sight. If it worked, it is good for him / her (due to regaining the sight), and it is good for you (you helped your loved one to regain the sight albeit with some expense). The mid point is met. That was Good.

Maybe the whole game of dividing the world into ideas and non-ideas is based on mistaken rules ? It's entirely possible that when we reconstruct our experience in a manner that is not authentic to our experience of the world. Many philosophers are troubled by the fact our inner experience appears to be cashed out in ineffable terms (qualia, propositional attitudes, cognitive content, feelings). We may have to live with this discord between subjective & objective world as a barrier erected by evolution. Call this neo-mysterianism with respect to metaphysical realism vs non realism. — Sirius

I agree with the OP. The division is meaningless, and not really making sense at all. The world can be created by mind, if one sees it via his / her active imagination to it. The artists would see the world with much imagination for the creativity. But is the artist view of the world accurate at all when applied their imagination into the perception? It is doubtful.

The world could be viewed from the ordinary daily folks point of view, which would be for just working, studying, and surviving. They don't care what idealism is or realism is about. They just put their head down, and follow the trends without much thoughts like the herd of Wildebeest. To them the issue doesn't even come to their mind. They just live on doing their time on the earth.

The world could be viewed as real place or space where the principles of science dictates. The scientists who are looking at the world for searching for the observable regularities by measuring and calculating the objects in the world for their researches would be classed as the realists.

Hence arguments of idealism vs. realism is not meaningful. The arguments have their origin in the ancient times, but they are still going on surprisingly. We could still study the arguments at times, but only from historical point of view.

In reality, the world is one reality, it is what is, i.e. a gigantic solid mass of physical place with space and time, where the many observable regular movements and motions take place, where life is being born, die and evaporates into the void, with still many unknown facts and mysteries. There are many different ways viewing the world, and not just one way is the truth.

If you insist on the realists view of the world is only true, then you are ignoring and discarding the artists' and ordinary folks world view. If you insist that the world is a mind-created entity, then you live in illusions not able to see the other side of the physical world.

If you are the ordinary folks just living under the trends, then you are not different from the Wildebeest running around the fields chasing for the food and shelter. You are born, live for the food, shelter and some pleasure, and when the times comes you depart the world into nothingness. You haven't thought what the world is, reality is, the truth is. No meaning in that life. Not saying it was good or bad, but futile and pointless life it seems.

It would be better to understand the fact that the world can be viewed from the different angles, and sometimes we take different views on the world depending on what is best for the situation in life. But whatever the case, we should understand that we are born, live and die in the material world. By all means you are free to inject your emotions and imaginations and faith into the world getting comfort and illusion for your creativity or survival.

For instance, one can look at a tree, and think it is a beautiful artistic object, and create art object out of it. The tree is then replicated into art piece with the imagination of the painter or sculpturer. Or if an artist looks at a tree in the garden, and makes an oil painting of the garden of Eden inspired by the tree, then it is a mind-created tree in the painting. Or one could just look at the tree, and feels it is beautiful, but in actual fact, the tree might be just an ordinary tree with no much aesthetic qualities in it. But the perceiver of the tree might have been overwhelmed by positive emotion on the day looking at the tree, and had the unwarranted emotional state.

When the perceiver of the tree goes away from the tree, and remembers the tree from the remote place, the tree is in the mind of the perceiver. The tree is now an abstract entity.

If the perceiver goes in front of the tree, measures the height and girth of the tree in order to cut the tree, and make into a garden table, then the tree is a material in physicality. It shows how even a tree could be viewed from mind-created, abstracted or material point of view depending on the operation of the mind of the perceiver.

I know what you mean. But I wonder if one could transcend the present time, when one is reading the past original texts. One will always read them from the stand point at he / she is in the time. One cannot be the original writers who lived 2500 years ago.

And another point is, I am not sure if idealism vs realism argument is only for the later and contemporary interpretations. After all, Plato was propounding the material world is false,and the ideal world is real and true, to which Aristotle retorted no, that is not the case. From Aristotle's point of view the actual particulars are true and real, which was the foundation of nominalism and realism.

Therefore neither it would be a wrong interpretation, nor placing ideas into a model unused by previous thinkers.

Maybe the collision of those two endeavors requires its own OP. That is above my pay grade. — Paine

You are well over my pay grade on these concepts. If you think it is worth a topic, and would start its own OP, I would follow the discussion reading and learning about them. Chora and Topos seem to be both interesting concepts in that they would expand the path of discussion into the idealism vs. realism direction, hence would help us to see the world in more accurate way, as it is.

There is no such a thing as the world as it is it might seem to the Humean vulgars, but it is a gradual concept i.e. which unfolds from the imagination, dreams, illusions, fantasies, and daily ordinary lives to the objective physical world which can be mapped into the mathematical formulas and scientific principles, to which we try to arrive via the philosophical arguments and insights.

You ignore what Descartes says and impose your own inference based on your own opinion rather than on anything said in the text. — Fooloso4

The logical analysis so far seems to reveal that my understanding is accurate and clear without any prejudice or distortion on the text. I was suggesting you to use your inference to understand him better.

A good question, but your rejecting the possibility does not mean that Descartes thought, even briefly, that is it impossible. Imposing your own opinions onto your reading of Descartes is bad practice. — Fooloso4

Ditto the above.

Where does he say this? He doubts his body and his senses, — Fooloso4

You can infer his doubts are about his own existence when he doubts his body and his senses.

but not that he exists. — Fooloso4

How could he exist without his body and senses?