When I was first deciding to how to about writing my philosophy on "the good" I was stumped. I wasn't at a loss for ideas, merely a loss for how to describe them. So, I did the obvious thing; Google "what is good?"
Google gave me to answers (for the noun "good"). Number one, "that which is morally right." And two, a "benefit or advantage to someone or something." The thing is, I have realized that I only truly agree with one of these definitions (number 2). Accordingly, I will be defending it for the remainder of this post.
All humans are programmed for one thing- survival. Although we may like to believe that we are above basic instincts, our mind works in our favor. We perceive things in the way that is best for us. However, because everyone is, at root, surviving differently, many different perceptions exist about similar topics. What one person may consider "good" is nothing more than their perception on the topic. Because we all survive differently, we all perceive differently and therefore assign good and bad differently.
I would like to bring up the topic of gay rights to illustrate my point. Here in America, we have a fairly developed, technologically advanced society (comparatively speaking). Many people are in favor of gay rights here not only because they believe people should be equal, but because their survival would not be affected by the right of gay people to wed. For this reason they consider gay rights "good". However, if you travel to remote villages all around the world, people will have different ideals. You see, remote villages only function on consistent reproduction. Gay relationships impede this cycle, therefore negatively affecting the survival of the village as a whole. This may very well be a significant factor in why many rural nations/ areas consider gay rights to be bad. (Keep in consideration this is just one persons theory and is not fact.)
My main point is that perceptions of "good" and "bad" depend on situation and survival. That being said, what is "good" is what benefits and individual, and can not be applied universally. Goodness is completely relative, and many of today's problems come from people's inability to distinguish that fact that their goodness is not the ultimate goodness. By defining goodness as "that which is morally right," we would be saying that everyone's goodness must somehow fit into the tight little box of "morality". But everyone is different and therefore everyone's idea of morality, and goodness are varying,
My main point: don't forget that what is good to me may not be good to you. Goodness is relative, so nothing can truly be defined as universally "good".
To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts, nor even to found a school…it is to solve some of the problems of life, not only theoretically, but practically. – Henry David Thoreau
I think your point about survival is interesting and necessary. I understand your point about rural villages and their more "backwards" beliefs and I could agree to that. In their perspective, their goodness is defined on their ability to survive and that could easily not align with my or your personal beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI agree that everything has two sides. Goodness cannot be easily defined by freedom and equality. It should be defined by multidimensional aspects. Goodness should not only satisfy people's need, but also adapt to the development and changes of the society.
ReplyDeleteI like your blunt introduction- it keeps the post light and amusing even though it is a serious issue you are discussing. I also appreciate how you use context as a lens for goodness- what is good or bad really does depend on circumstances
ReplyDeleteGenius title first off.. Also I really like how you brought up this topic. I feel like we live in an area where most people all have the same ideals. Thinking about it, I do understand that that could be an argument against gay rights and how that could have been a problem, but living in such a progressive era in a very liberal area, I have grown up being accepting of all people and have been lucky enough where the idea of people following their hearts does not contrast with survival. I hope that we never backtrack into an era where that becomes a problem again.
ReplyDeleteYour idea is very similar to mine. On the basis of survival and natural selection, humans are destined to favor what's beneficial to them. When reading self-reliance, it states a very interesting point: that people do charity only to make themselves feel good. They give money to the poor not because they love and care about them, but because they care about themselves.
ReplyDelete