Introducing Myself

Tell us a little about yourself.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
rabirk
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:15 pm

Introducing Myself

Post by rabirk »

Hello. I'm a nearly 50-year-old man in the state of Maryland but soon to be moving to Texas. In December 2021, I somehow developed an interest in philosophy. I'd been exposed to some Stoic thought that kindled a craving to know more. Twenty-five years ago, I gave up on Christianity, and I remain highly skeptical of religion. I refuse to believe anything without a good reason, better than that the belief is presented in some old book. Humans have the ability to reason, and we should use it. Now I consider myself a rationalist, if I have to define my world view in one word.

Since December 2021, I've subscribed to Philosophy Now, and I've found it interesting. In my philosophical meanderings, I find that I'm particularly interested in ethics. I also have an interest in criminal justice, and my own area of inquiry is along these lines: Is human nature good or bad? I read recently that ancient Chinese philosopher Mengzi thought it was good, likening people to sprouts that just need to be properly watered. Xunxi, on the other hand, thought humans bad, likening them to workmen who had to use skills to work at being good, countering their nature.

My questions are:
1) What does it mean to be good? (Yes, that question is an oldie but goodie);
2) Are people by nature good or bad?;
3) Can goodness be taught?;
4) Can goodness be legislated?;
5) How should "badness" be punished? Are prisons the answer? Do prisons release people better than they were when they entered?;
6) Are prisons good or bad?;
7) Finally, decades into the drug war, can we say whether drug dealers have moral status? If not, should they?

It would be great to find a community in North Texas where people discuss these issues, but I'll settle for online dialogue if that's all I can get.
Thanks for reading!
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Introducing Myself

Post by Walker »

Howdy. Ever been to Texas?

1. Action precedes goodness, but thought doesn't always precede action.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Introducing Myself

Post by Immanuel Can »

Welcome. I'll have a go, if I may.
rabirk wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:34 pmMy questions are:
1) What does it mean to be good?
To conform, in thought and action, to the nature of God.
2) Are people by nature good or bad?;
Created in the image of God, but fallen.
3) Can goodness be taught?;
It can be taught about; that doesn't mean it can be done.
4) Can goodness be legislated?;
The question answers itself.
5) How should "badness" be punished?
Humanly? With grave humility.
6) Are prisons good or bad?;
Terrible places.
7) Finally, decades into the drug war, can we say whether drug dealers have moral status?
Everybody has "moral status."
Clinton
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2023 9:36 pm

Re: Introducing Myself

Post by Clinton »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 10:52 pm Welcome. I'll have a go, if I may.
rabirk wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:34 pmMy questions are:
1) What does it mean to be good?
To conform, in thought and action, to the nature of God.
2) Are people by nature good or bad?;
Created in the image of God, but fallen.
3) Can goodness be taught?;
It can be taught about; that doesn't mean it can be done.
4) Can goodness be legislated?;
The question answers itself.
5) How should "badness" be punished?
Humanly? With grave humility.
6) Are prisons good or bad?;
Terrible places.
7) Finally, decades into the drug war, can we say whether drug dealers have moral status?
Everybody has "moral status."
I have no comments to the thread-starter. My attempts at answering their questions would be result in a lengthy enough of a word count that I'd want a new thread for my answer to each question. I do have some questions for you though:

#1. If to be "good" is to conform, in thought and action, to the nature of God, of what use is including the word "God" in that sentence? God is undefined until we know its traits. Therefore, so far as I can tell, you're essentially stating nothing about the nature of what "good" means. What's more, even if we do know the traits of "God," I see no reason why those traits would necessarily have anything to do with an ability to determine what is good or bad.

I'm not entirely sure morality shouldn't be defined as objective, because I've never really be sure about the difference between objective and subjective morality. I could therefore understand, and possibly agree with someone perceiving certain things as just being objectively good. I do think, however, that regardless of whether or not something can be objectively good, the only way to tell whether or not it appears to be good is through our own human reasoning processes. I would therefore say that what God claims good to be, more or less, has nothing to do with what good actually is (at least as far as we can tell). I think "good" should be seen as more rooted in what we can reason it as being. That's not saying that God doesn't know what good is better than I do, only that I have no reason to believe God's views on what is good, unless God can explain their views on what is good to me in a way I can understand the reasoning behind, making God's views on what good is no more or less valid (at least to myself, and hopefully everyone else) than the views on what is "good" of my next door neighbor. In other words, it's not the source of the of what is "good" that matters, so far as I can tell. It's, rather, how convincing of an argument that being can make for why such things are "good," that's important.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: Introducing Myself

Post by Agent Smith »

"I'm here to announce to the world a momentous discovery made in the Xin Lao formation located in the south Gobi desert - a dinosaur species of great paleontological significance. Without further ado, this, ladies & gentlemen, is the Chelioptarus ferius. The specimen recovered was remarkably preserved despite it being at lest 77 million years old. The process involved is the focus of intense research by an international team of scientists. That will be a story for another day. Right now we'll be talking about the Chelioptarus ferius. It was green in coloration and ... "

"Some apples are green!

"and, as you can observe from its dentition, it was a carnivore. We will now ..."

"Praying mantises are carnivores!"

"Excuse me, we will now briefly touch upon its mode of locomtion - powerful hind legs, much like that of a T-Rex, and short arms suggest bipedalism. It should be obvious that ... "

"Humans are bipedal"

"Ahem, it should be obvious that it had an extraordinarily long tail. We're yet to figure out why. Perhaps it evolved for speed in which case a counterweight when making fast turns would be necessary. The feet are ..."

"Cats have tails!"

"Hehe, sir, sir, if you'll be quiet please. This is a once-in-a-million-years scientific find and you're ruining a historic moment. Gracias. Where were we? Ah! The Chelioptarus ferius is ..."

"What Chelioptera-bullshitus feri-poppycock-us!! It's just a human-cat-mantis-apple-abominaticus from the island of Dr. Monreau? You silly old man! Nincompoops, all of ya, nincompoops!"
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Introducing Myself

Post by Immanuel Can »

Clinton wrote: Mon Mar 06, 2023 10:47 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 10:52 pm Welcome. I'll have a go, if I may.
rabirk wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 10:34 pmMy questions are:
1) What does it mean to be good?
To conform, in thought and action, to the nature of God.
2) Are people by nature good or bad?;
Created in the image of God, but fallen.
3) Can goodness be taught?;
It can be taught about; that doesn't mean it can be done.
4) Can goodness be legislated?;
The question answers itself.
5) How should "badness" be punished?
Humanly? With grave humility.
6) Are prisons good or bad?;
Terrible places.
7) Finally, decades into the drug war, can we say whether drug dealers have moral status?
Everybody has "moral status."
I have no comments to the thread-starter. My attempts at answering their questions would be result in a lengthy enough of a word count that I'd want a new thread for my answer to each question. I do have some questions for you though:

#1. If to be "good" is to conform, in thought and action, to the nature of God, of what use is including the word "God" in that sentence?
Essential, obviously...I'm not sure I can understand what the problem is you're perceiving there. Can you elaborate?
God is undefined until we know its traits.
I can't make sense of that objection.

If you don't have a definition for the word "mountain," it wouldn't stop a mountain from existing. And if you didn't know which "traits" made big hill or a foothill into a mountain, it wouldn't imply the mountain didn't exist. It would only mean the speaker lacked some terms he/she needed to acquire.
Therefore, so far as I can tell, you're essentially stating nothing about the nature of what "good" means.
That wouldn't follow.

What would follow was that I was giving only one definition of a word that might be capable of complex definitions. For example, "conformable to the nature of God" might also be the same thing which is "healthy for us," or "suitable with creation," or "decent to other human beings," or "ultimately practical," or even "intrinsically and objectively beneficial." And all those definitions would still refer to exactly the same thing.
What's more, even if we do know the traits of "God," I see no reason why those traits would necessarily have anything to do with an ability to determine what is good or bad.
The problem will dissolve once you see that "God" and "what is truly good" are coextensive terms, not separate and independent ones.
I'm not entirely sure morality shouldn't be defined as objective, because I've never really be sure about the difference between objective and subjective morality.
Superficially, the distinction runs this way, if I can summarize it for you. Something that's "objective" exists independent of the observer...like a mountain. Something that's "subjective" doesn't exist externally, but is purely a product of human cognition or perception.
I could therefore understand, and possibly agree with someone perceiving certain things as just being objectively good.
Given the kind of distinction above?
I do think, however, that regardless of whether or not something can be objectively good, the only way to tell whether or not it appears to be good is through our own human reasoning processes.
Ah, the old problem!

You're mixing two different philosophical approaches: ontology and epistemology. Ontology has to do with what actually, objectively exists; epistemology only has to do with as much of that stuff as human beings happen to know at a given moment in history.

That you use "human reasoning processes" and "can't tell" something doesn't have any impact on whether or not that thing actually exists. It only tells you about the limits of either your knowledge, or perhaps of human knowledge at the moment. When human epistemology did not include knowledge of bacteria, bacteria still existed and killed people with infections. When human beings came to know that bacteria do exist, that did not make the bacteria start to exist...they were already there.
I would therefore say that what God claims good to be, more or less, has nothing to do with what good actually is (at least as far as we can tell). I think "good" should be seen as more rooted in what we can reason it as being.
Well, I understand that objection as a sort of first intuition or instant assumption, but that isn't the right or appropriate logical conclusion, we would have to say, for all of the reasons given above.
That's not saying that God doesn't know what good is better than I do, only that I have no reason to believe God's views on what is good, unless God can explain their views on what is good to me in a way I can understand the reasoning behind, making God's views on what good is no more or less valid (at least to myself, and hopefully everyone else) than the views on what is "good" of my next door neighbor.
That would only be a plausible objection if your neighbour were as wise as God, and likewise involved in the very grounds of existence. But I think your neighbour is more likely to be a flawed, contingent, limited, partially-knowing human being like you and I are.
In other words, it's not the source of the of what is "good" that matters, so far as I can tell. It's, rather, how convincing of an argument that being can make for why such things are "good," that's important.
Why would we think it was an either-or? Why would we say that "good" cannot mean "that which is in accord with the nature of God," and "that which we can know to be such"? Especially if God had spoken to us and revealed to humankind what was good, we might very plausibly have reason to know at least some of what the objectively "good" was.

In short, I can't see that your objections can be sustained yet. But maybe you have a more complex version that can, and I'm open to hearing that.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Introducing Myself

Post by Advocate »

[quote=rabirk post_id=623501 time=1675978470 user_id=23492]
1) What does it mean to be good? (Yes, that question is an oldie but goodie);
2) Are people by nature good or bad?;
3) Can goodness be taught?;
4) Can goodness be legislated?;
5) How should "badness" be punished? Are prisons the answer? Do prisons release people better than they were when they entered?;
6) Are prisons good or bad?;
7) Finally, decades into the drug war, can we say whether drug dealers have moral status? If not, should they?

It would be great to find a community in North Texas where people discuss these issues, but I'll settle for online dialogue if that's all I can get.
Thanks for reading!
[/quote]

1) Good has the misfortune in English of opposing both bad (effects) and evil (intents).

2) No. People tend to be good in good circumstances and evil in bad or evil ones.

3) Yes. But not by most, who have no idea.

4) All law is legislated morality, but no system of law has yet been rational and fair.

5) There are three parties in any issue of justice; the victim(s), the wrongdoer, and society, and justice is served for them by restitution, redress, save rehabilitation respectively. There is no room for retribution or revenge in justice.

6) Bad. They don't serve the stated goal of rehabilitation and are ethically repugnant in nearly all cases, often causing worse harm than that which they claim to punish.

7) The drug war is inherently immoral because doing drugs isn't.
Post Reply