Good?

I'd just like to open up a can of worms here and ask why an act is good.

what criteria makes it good?
is it a divine criteria?
if it's a divine criteria, is it good because the divinity deems it to be good or does the divinity say it's good because it objectively is?

*takes a step back*

Without there being something bigger than ourselves, there is no good. There is only self. In which case, we'd be fools to follow anything other than what would benefit ourselves the most.

For example, robbing a bank would get me a lot of money. However, there's the chance that I would be caught by the police. The only reason I shouldn't rob a bank is because of the risk and the potential for it to cause me to be in a worse situation than better in the end. However, if I could be assured to get away with it, or am willing to take the risk, there is no other reason not to rob the bank.

If I feel guilty passing a homeless person without helping them out, giving them some money would help alleviate that guilt. However, it will come back, so I should probably invest a little more in counseling in order to get rid of the nonsensical guilt feeling regarding someone who is not me being in a poor situation so as to completely take care of the problem, rather than having to pay daily investments to temporarily take care of a foolish feeling.

Etc. etc. With nothing larger than ourselves to dictate what is good, it is me and only me who is important, and whatever is best for me is all I should strive for. Survival of the fittest, every man for himself.

"Good" is subjective.

For example, food. What tastes good to one person may repulse another.

I don't believe in good or bad, but I do believe in polarities of positive and negative. There are positive-oriented beings as well as negative-oriented beings. Some are service-to-self and others are service-to-others.

Both sides have lots of learning and growth to do.

If everything was "good" then humans especially would not grow and learn. They would be stagnant.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I'd just like to open up a can of worms here and ask why an act is good.

what criteria makes it good?
is it a divine criteria?
if it's a divine criteria, is it good because the divinity deems it to be good or does the divinity say it's good because it objectively is?

I'll address this inquiry from a spiritual perspective.

Those acts which lead to increasing one's ability to expand one's soul in the nonliving and infinite Light on the Other Side (i.e., indicative of Frequency Quotient), and/or be able to stay on that high level of expansion in The Light (indicative of Stability Quotient), and thereby find long-term contentment, are inherently good

Souls, which are a form of energy, are only temporarily in the flesh. They do not find any lasting happiness on the Other Side unless they are at least on a basically spiritual dimension -- the fourth plane in the traditional seven plane paradigm -- in The Light. Those on the lower levels -- the first, second and third planes -- are in a constant state of emotional degradation and frustration, depending on the individual's karma. They remain there until they learn what "good" is and also find the value in cultivating it.

Evil contains the seeds of its own destruction.

We are all held accountable for our actions and even our intentions. No one ever truly gets away with anything although it often appears that way on This Side because we don't see karma played out on the Other Side.

If we incarnate into a depraved culture, we are still responsible for our actions because we chose that culture in the first place

Life is very important because how we have lived our life largely determines how far we can go into The Light.

Near Death Experience Research Conclusions

On a more basic level, we can determine what is right and what is wrong through our application of The Golden Rule.

Murders and rapists have a hard time determining what is good and what is bad because they have severely damaged their god spark that is used to understand the difference. So for the spiritually retarded, determining what is good is in itself very hard for them to do.

Conversely, those who strive to live moral lives of selfless service to others, improve their god spark and find it much easier to determine what is good and what is bad.

Whether we believe it or understand it, we are all judged by the Universal Law which governs The Light on the Other Side. It is there that we have no choice - if we are objective - but to understand what good (or lack thereof) that we have done with our lives, to learn from our mistakes, and to strive to pay back those we have harmed or mistreated in some way.

to define a good act you must know what good and evil are

to me they are only perspectives invented by our minds to make sure our species doesn't kill ourselves, also so that we have a sense of meaning


the idea is that anyone can imagine a killing as a good act, and truly feel it as something good

the universe doesn't care for good or bad, it just cares for what is

in my perspective

reply to post by junglejake


but doesn't goodness coming from a higher authority beg the question?

i mean, does the authority say it's good because the act is good or is it good because the authority says it's good?
hell, what gives the higher power any right to judge goodness?

Originally posted by tankthinker
to define a good act you must know what good and evil are

to me they are only perspectives invented by our minds to make sure our species doesn't kill ourselves, also so that we have a sense of meaning


the idea is that anyone can imagine a killing as a good act, and truly feel it as something good

the universe doesn't care for good or bad, it just cares for what is

in my perspective

Ya know I just love it when people bring up what unthinking things do not care about, it adds so much more to the waste of bandwidth we get to wade through

I would say good is defined by how an action helps people, and bad, by how it harms them.

But even that is subjective.

For example, like we've discussed here, some people think it would be "good" to cut welfare benefits, because then people would be more encouraged to work on their own, but others think that is "bad" because it will make life more difficult and stressful for those people.

At the most basic level, something that causes pain is bad, and something that causes pleasure or reduces pain is good.

The spiritual aspect comes from realizing a good act may reduce the pain of someone other than yourself.

Finally, good and bad have to be looked at over a long course of time. For example, heroin may be pleasurable, but causes a lot of pain over time. Hence it is bad.

Interesting topic.

Synonymous with Love and all derivatives.

imo, ofcourse.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


"goooooooooddddddddd"

*light*freedom*eternity*beeing*seeing*finding*feeling*forever*and*ever*and*ever...

good is good
cause its good
its a heart-question
a soul - question
only a question
from the brain
and the mind


Nia Wind

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


The concepts of good and evil exist only as we interpret them. If you interpret “good” as divine mandate, than what God wants is good.

If you interpret “good” as something with a personal beneficial outcome, then anything with a positive outcome to you is good.

If you interpret “good” as beneficial to mankind and the universe, then any positive outcome is good.

I’m afraid the problem is that you are asking a loaded question. “Good” like any abstract Idea, is subjective to the observer. So there is no possible correct answer.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul



In my own philosophical reasoning, good does not actually exist. Good and evil are relative. The bombing of Hiroshima at the time it happened was Good to Americans. However if you lived in Japan in the area, or if your loved ones did.. It's obvious it was a pretty bad thing.

I think the closest you can get to quantifying good or evil is in ethics. But that is decided by the people, and not some greater force.

So to summarize my thoughts; Good is what you make of it, but there is no ultimate good.

What is in the mutual best interest of one and all, is good. I also think that good is good, not relative to what is bad or evil, but only for it's own sake, and that therefore goodness is it's own reward.

Today I bought a homeless man lunch when he asked me, and I told him that it's good to try to do a good deed each day, and that it would be my honour and priveledge to help him out a bit, and he replied that, yes, it makes the world a better place, and makes people feel better about themselves. Strangely I felt that I was the one who got the most from the exchange, which cost me $11.00 with the addition of an organce juice which he felt would be helpful to him for the vitamin C. It really was an honour to be of service - some might say that it could have been an "enabling" of his situation, but if the role was reversed, I would want to have someone like me do what I did for him.

Good may then be measured by the standard of the golden rule I think - do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

reply to post by TALIN


i wanted to ask a question but i noticed he got banned so ill direct it to anyone else

how do you know the universe is unthinking?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


All indication that I have is the higher authority judges by the standard of love.

And when I helped that person out today, sure I got to feel good about myself as in "aren't I a nice person to do such a thing" but there was more to it than that. I had this sense that I was doing something for God, or for the sake of compassion or love, and the reward I got was a joy that exceeded my own sense of self worth or self esteem ie: affirming my own "goodness". It reminded me of when Jesus said "in so far as you did it unto the least of these, you did it unto me." and what he meant by that I think, is that we are all one and that such actions are in alignment with the golden rule with Jesus having identified himself with that standard at the core level, being the very measure of it within his person or innermost being.

In other words that God, aside from whatever other attributes God may possess (omniscence, infinite intelligence etc.), is love itself, where love is more than a feeling, but something intrinsic to the very nature of things, maybe even the reason and the impetus for creation itself..

[edit on 28-5-2009 by OmegaPoint]

What's "good" can change depending on your perspective. What's good for me? What's good for the group? The family? The earth? The universe?

'Good' is synonymous with 'desirable'. Religions use the term 'good' to define what's desirable to god. On the flip side, 'evil' is used to describe what is desirable for god's opposite, the devil. Now put god and the devil together as one entity and then ask "what's good?" 'Good' is progress... growth... evolution. 'Bad' is when growth is hindered... which ironically organized religions are often guilty of. Science is guilty of this as well.

reply to post by Paul_Richard


I like this persons take on it, whereby GOOD is what causes the soul to grow and expand, to be filled with light and love.

We all know when we're into something truly good and we grow and expand as a result, or, alternatively, when we're into something bad, which causes us to srhink and contract.

I find it somewhat amuzing the reaction whenever someone dares mention "God", and I think that's sad, sad what organized regligion has done to drive people away from ancient wisdom and universal truths, as if any mention of Jesus or God ought to be disqualified out of hand and given the label of "religious" (spit).

Me I can see extraordinary things in the person and teachings of Jesus, things which resonate with the good, and lovingkindness, and which are still relevant today, and I am by no means a Bible thumping Xtian fundy.

But the moral reletavism, along the lines of "good" is only a subjective interpretation, I don't think that holds water. There is an intrinsic goodness, and badness, and for the most part, everyone the whole world over is in general agreement about these things. It's not all relative. That's a cop out, and imho, intellectually lazy.

"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, and proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principal is, contempt, prior to investigation."
~ Herbert Spencer

[edit on 28-5-2009 by OmegaPoint]

I'd like to bump this old thread again, especially since I've had a much greater exposure to moral philosophy, philosophy in general, and theology since I first started this thread oh so many moons ago.