RCTjunkie said:
Jay520 said:
RCTjunkie said:
You're redefining what's "good" and "bad" as beneficial for society instead of a moral "good" or "bad." It may have ultimately been good for America to exterminate the Native Americans to form their own society and advance the world, but it doesn't make it morally okay. |
What's best for society is what's best for the most people possible, which is usually what's best for each individual in the longterm. If that's not an accurate definition of "good", then what is? I'm not asking for examples of morally good behavior, I'm asking you for what "morally good" means. What is the definition of "morally good"? If your response isn't "what's best for the most people possible", then the definition of "morally good" is pretty meaningless. In which case, humans have no obligation to do "morally good" behavior as it has no tangible benefits for anyone. |
Good question. A definition of "good" would be reflecting God's character (compassion, fairness, kindness, etc.) which in a way is what's best for the most people possible, I suppose. That's not the point, however. I'm questioning why morality has to have its basis as tangible benefits. I'm a firm believer in the rule that "no good deed goes unpunished," meaning that when people do a good deed for others, there can be backlash and punishment for doing what is right. If one is to redefine "morally good" meaning what is most beneficial, then there's no God-given life, liberty, or persuit of happiness guaranteed, and at any moment one could be martyred or ostricized for whatever "beneficial" reason the people can declare, as well as people not going out to do good for others at more cost to them because there won't be a tangible benefit for the person. I hope this made sense....
|
We can value life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness because these things are universally deemed to be good on at least a personal level (e.g. while not all people might think that everyone deserves to be free, every individual will value his or her freedom).
Essentially (i told all y'all in this thread to read some Kant) the Golden Rule can serve as a god substitute, because we have these things that are universally valued on an individual level, such that we can know that violating these things is inherently wrong.
The questions come from the definitions of life (as seen in the questions of abortion and physician assisted suicide) liberty (namely the extent of property rights) and pursuit of happiness (is gratification a prime source of happiness), but we all can agree that none of us would like to be deprived of these things, and therefore understand that it is bad to do these things to others.
