What is "goodness?"

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

Is that your opinion?

Yes.

Greedy people need more things. So, they need money to buy those things.

So, they have to work harder to get that money.

But, every-time someone does work, it's a service or product produced for someone else.

So, they have to be "Charitable" first, in order to get the "money", to satisfy the "Greed".

Hence individual greed promotes collective charity.

And Charity is Love.

And Love is Good.

Hence, Greed is Good.

Albeit, in a roundabout way.

It's Alchemy.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

By mindfulness I mean giving thought to all aspects of an action. If i am taking a life, or stealing...those are obviuosly harmful. But other harm can be caused by non mindful actions...discarding trash into the ocean, for example; words said out of anger, actions based on purely selfishness... those can cause harm. therefore they do not equal "goodness" ideally.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Do you not understand the concepts they illustrate?

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Aristotelian1

Darkness is the absence of light. Goodness is the absence of badness.

It used to be called good and evil, that which people do unto each other is either a good thing… or not.

I don't hold for do gooding, the acts of what some a call good, aren't.

I think if you don't run around doing bad things to others, then you're alright.

Okay. What is badness? By your own admission you have to define badness to know what goodness is.

They are opposites. You know one by the other.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Obviously.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

originally posted by: rickymouse
I think Reeses peanut butter cups are good. I think Figs and Dates are bad.

Other than that, everything else is a matter of perspective.

Are you saying that there is no such thing as right and wrong?

To live in societies we have to create a right and wrong. There are also exclusions made for these.

It is all right to kill your enemy in a war but it is murder if you kill someone in society. If someone is trying to hurt you, it is alright to kill them within certain parameters. Also, your status in society is considered as to what is considered adequate.

So where is the line, it kind of wanders all over the place.

So do you or do you not have a definition for goodness?

I can tell you how I want to be, my concept of good.

But no I cannot define goodness as applicable to everyone in the world.

Ask a cannibal that question, see what he says. He will probably take it with a grain of salt...and pepper

originally posted by: Astyanax
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Obviously.

Unfortunately, that's a popular delusion. It does not work.

People mostly do the opposite.

If you are kind, people think you are weak, and punish you for it.

So, basically, what in fact works, is to do the opposite of what you'd like to receive.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Astyanax
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Obviously.

Unfortunately, that's a popular delusion. It does not work.

People mostly do the opposite.

If you are kind, people think you are weak, and punish you for it.

So, basically, what in fact works, is to do the opposite of what you'd like to receive.

I hate to sound cliche here, but you get what you give. If one sets limits, and always adheres to those limits, strength is percieved not weakness. Its a common misconception that generosity and kindness are seen as weakness. If one is confident and generous one will never be seen as truly weak. If one is intimidated into generosity, or if one seeks fame for his generosity...then it isnt mindful or real...therefore there is weakness present.

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

I hate to sound cliche here, but you get what you give.

All animals evolve behaviors from constant exposure to experiences.

Eventually, nature "selects" the optimal behavior patterns. The behavior that works best.

If "you get what you give" were really true, that would be the behavior seen all around us.

We wouldn't see the opposite of it.

Since we wouldn't see the opposite behavior, we'd never have to introduce the thought "you get what you give".

These aphorisms are deliberately entered into the lexicon as a counter to what is actually seen.

It's an attempt to "change" the natural behavior that has evolved through natural selection over time.

It is considered "more civilized", but not more natural.

It is a result of man "thinking" and "philosophizing" about the way things "should be".

It is not the way things are.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

IMHO....

Good and Evil...simply put, do not exist.

Either you act in a manner fitting your social culture, or you do not.

Good or Evil are labels applied based off of how those view your actions.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Unfortunately, (‘do unto others...’ is) a popular delusion. It does not work.

Nonsense. It works perfectly well. If it doesn’t work for you, that is because you expect others to do likewise. That was never the point of it. The point of it is what you do.

Goodness is not weakness. Never confuse the two. Goodness is strength. Weak people find it difficult to be good.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: AMPTAH

Unfortunately, (‘do unto others...’ is) a popular delusion. It does not work.

Nonsense. It works perfectly well. If it doesn’t work for you, that is because you expect others to do likewise. That was never the point of it. The point of it is what you do.

Goodness is not weakness. Never confuse the two. Goodness is strength. Weak people find it difficult to be good.

It is why we need religion.

What does religion basically tell man?

Do something "good" today, and you'll get a corresponding "return" in the "afterlife".

Why?

Why not get back something good in this very life?

Why do we have to wait until we die, before we see the "fruit" of our "good actions" ?

We don't need any religion, if "you get what you give".

All religion is there to "counter" the reality, and provide man with this deluded belief that "you get what you give."

a reply to: AMPTAH

No, religion has absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact, moral arguments based on religion are worse than useless, because no religion displays a consistent morality in its scriptures. Whether it’s Christianity, Judaism, Islam or something more exotic than that, every religion displays moral contradictions at the heart of it.

Why not get back something good in this very life?

You do. You get affection, respect, even power.

You obviously aren’t doing it right.

AMPTAH – All religion is there to "counter" the reality, and provide man with this deluded belief that "you get what you give."

Astyanax – every religion displays moral contradictions at the heart of it.

Perhaps many (or even most) religions advocate a code of conduct based on some notion of goodness. But, making sweeping claims about “every religion” is precarious. There are thousands practiced today and countless more that have gone extinct (for a wide variety of reasons). Not all have doctrinal requirements, not all are theistic, not all have a goal of favorable judgment in an afterlife, etc. There are non-religious people who have a meaningful concept of goodness (and religious people who seem to find no notion of goodness compelling enough to adopt for themselves).

Religion is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a meaningful concept of goodness.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: AMPTAH
every religion displays moral contradictions at the heart of it.

There are no contradictions in religion.

Religion claims that the two most important things are "timing" and "food".

What is done at one time, is opposite that done at another time.

It is only people who try to interpret the opposites as being simultaneous principles that find contradictions.

Doesn't make the religion "right", but there aren't any "contradictions".

originally posted by: Aristotelian1

What is "goodness?"

Benevolent balance and peace as opposed to malevolent control and war...

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: AMPTAH
every religion displays moral contradictions at the heart of it.

There are no contradictions in religion.

It is only people who try to interpret the opposites as being simultaneous principles that find contradictions.

These precepts don't appear to be time indexed, and they are as simultaneous as written text could accommodate (successive verses):

Prov 26:4 “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.”
Prov 26:5 “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.”

These also, very close in the text, have no time index:

Matt 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”
Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

originally posted by: birdxofxprey


These precepts don't appear to be time indexed, and they are as simultaneous as written text could accommodate (successive verses):

Prov 26:4 “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.”
Prov 26:5 “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.”

Judeo-Christian religion doesn't specify the times explicitly. Presumably, the "wise" know how to tell the times. The 3 wise men knew when Jesus was born, and went to find him. So, we know it required "wisdom" to understand the times to act one way or another.

Among eastern religions, the swarodaya puports to enalble one to learn how to determine the times. Basically, the swara yoga claims that if you do good actions at the wrong time, you get a negative result. So, it is important to understand when some action would produce a positive outcome.

a reply to: birdxofxprey

making sweeping claims about “every religion” is precarious

Normally I would agree, but in this case it's a safe assumption. Moral contradictions are also logical contradictions. And the function of religion is to make sense of things that aren't logical. The contradiction is built in.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

Goodness to me is living by the golden rule. Treat others how you want to be treated. In other words treat everyone like your self because there is no self.