Intrinsic good

[Tarvaa]

I don't know where I should be asking this question...so maybe it needs moving?

I was sitting around waiting for something and I got stuck thinking about what good actually is? It is probably an age old question, and I am sure everyone has there own answer.

Is there something that is intinsically good? Good in itself, rather than good for something else?

The only thing I could think of that has inherent good is the birth of a child. Of course, some will argue that even this is not inherently good, but serves some other people.

I don't want to get into a discussion about whether or not a baby has intrinsic value exclusively. I would like to hear what people think about "good" and "intrinsic good".

thanks

[minstrelbard]

I think this depends on where, in our hierarchy of things-that-are-necessary, we start making value judgments. We can say the universe is intrinsically good; existence is intrinsically good; time and space are intrinsically good, etc., but it may be more convenient (and more valuable for the purposes of discussion) to simply consider these things as "givens", in that we have to have them before any discussion of value can take place.

Life, as a general concept, is good (IMO), but an individual life may not be. This calls into question whether the birth of a child is intrinsically good. I think in the vast majority of cases the birth of a child is good, but in general, the "intrinsic" part doesn't really hold up for me.

Love is probably intrinsically good, though I'm open to persuasion on that one.

How about justice? Or mercy? Can't have both - is either intrinsically good?

Peace is probably intrinsically good. I don't mean peace in the sense of absence of war; I mean peace in the sense of tranquility.

[Dodo25]

I think nothing is intrinsically good. What would there be good about forces and laws of physics acting the way they act?

On a relative scale however, when we treat human beings as agents with free will in the morally relevant, non-supernatural sense, we can certainly classify actions, or even states like 'happiness' or 'love' as 'good' or 'bad'. Yet we need to keep in mind that this is our subjective viewpoint, not some absolute property of the universe.

Additionally, in order to do so, we need a frame of reference, an ethical system. People do have an inchoate 'moral compass', shaped by evolution (cooperation in groups etc.) and society. Yet the values of people differ greatly, so only by intution, no persuasive justification of 'good' or 'bad' can be arrived at.

I personally favor a form of utilitarianism, where 'avoiding suffering' (of course with an elaborate definition of 'suffering' related to consciousness and all vital interests of a being) is the frame of reference, and the consequences of an action are what matters. This sounds reasonable, yet the results can be very counterintuitive. Love is not always good, it can be destructive. Also killing, even killing 'innocent' beings, is not always wrong. And of course, this system of ethics reaches not only humans, but also other animals with conscious interests.

This again shows how morality is relative. While many rational and secular people might find my ethics reasonable, others, holding a religiously influenced view, or a Kantian one, would immediately attack utilitarianism for 'not valuing human life enough'..

[Kyriakos]

My own view is that good can be defined as that which supports and generally has the tendancy to allow the development of a pleasant state in an individual, or more people, or an entire society.

Already with Nietzsche it has been argued that the formation of a notion of good should not be the product of a weakness, that is one shouldnt value an ethic that was born out of decadence. His main example was that of the christian ethics, and he claimed that it was the revenge of the weak against the strong.

As for intrinsic good, again i think that it exists, since, to rpodive a very basic example, it is intrinsically good to feed yourself, otherwise you will die. Likewise other, more complex acts of self-preservation are good, since they provide the basis for a healthy life.

[andrewoberg]

As for intrinsic good, again i think that it exists, since, to rpodive a very basic example, it is intrinsically good to feed yourself, otherwise you will die. Likewise other, more complex acts of self-preservation are good, since they provide the basis for a healthy life.

Good point, and I think this can be expanded to the level of general society. It is logical to behave in ways that your society defines as "good" because that will cause one to benefit most from what society has to offer. I think further that this tendency is reinforced by natural selection, and an argument could probably be made that we as a species are also evolving morally.

[whathappened]

Kyriakos: "My own view is that good can be defined as that which supports and generally has the tendancy to allow the development of a pleasant state in an individual, or more people, or an entire society."

Is Socrates good or bad... I find this tough.

andrewoberg: "It is logical to behave in ways that your society defines as "good" because that will cause one to benefit most from what society has to offer."

And what would Athens offer Socrates had he helped the authorities to maintain a city of the mind-dead?

[Dodo25]

Good point, and I think this can be expanded to the level of general society. It is logical to behave in ways that your society defines as "good" because that will cause one to benefit most from what society has to offer. I think further that this tendency is reinforced by natural selection, and an argument could probably be made that we as a species are also evolving morally.

No, it doesn't work like this. Except if 'being moral' is accompagnied by having lots of offspring, but that's generally not the case..

There are only two ways in which altruism benefits one's own genes, and thus becomes favored by natural selection: Kin selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection and reciprocal altruism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism.

Edit: Very good points about Socrates @whathappened

[Lionheart]

If one looks at a baby is it good or bad? One could argue that in its helplessness that it is good due to it needing something from others to help it along its way. However another could argue that it has this vulnerable stasis of life, that furthers its ego to live, grow and compete. It doesn't take long to see related children at a checkout line exhibit very possessive, animalistic fury at whom will be first to unload the cart. Is this an expression of their parents' ego at home or a dormant controlling rage that negates the idea of an intrinsic good?

From what I have seen, babies are pretty self-centered without the forethought that they are just a part of this world, instead of the whole thing. How could being inherently selfish be good? To think the first words from a baby's mouth isn't God, but mamma and dadda, which reflects how their parents build the good or the bad into the children.

I believe it was Locke that said something like this, just not sure, so don't quote me on it.

[Dodo25]

Yes, it was Locke who stated that babies / children are 'tabulae rasae' Latin for 'empty black boards' or 'empty sheets of paper', and content is written on / in them by the environment, which to a great extent consists of the parents.

Now we know that genes determine the personality of a person to a great extent. Studies on identical twins raised seperately (to eliminate the environment component) have shown that they end up as having a remarkable similar character as adults. Both environment and genes are important.

I think it is wrong to call a baby 'selfish'. Or more precisely, you can call it selfish, but it's wrong to judge the baby based on this. It's the same thing as calling a lion cruel for killing a gazelle. I think the subjective terms 'good' and 'bad' only enter the scene once an agent's consciousness is developed enough so he/she/it has free will in the morally relevant sense.

[Kyriakos]

I agree, babies cannot be judged in such a way. They have to be like this, it seems that it is very crucial for their development.

Moreover from what i've read of modern psychology it appears that the ethical self is formed in the third year of life, so before that the child has no notion of ethics, not even a primitive one.

By the way if anyone has some reading to suggest on this i am very interested to see it

[Dodo25]

By the way if anyone has some reading to suggest on this i am very interested to see it

I don't know any texts about the development of morality in babies. Yet if you're interested in ethics in general, here is some cool material:

A talk by Sam Harris arguing against cultural relativism, he states that there are objective criteria to base an ethical system on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

Then there is the highly controversial approach of the utilitarianist philosopher Peter Singer. He also argues that there is an objective morality, yet the 'rules' he proposes severely clash with most people's moral intuitions:

Singer on 'how to solve the hunger problem' and why we are morally obliged to do something against it:
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm

On Abortion and Infanticide:
http://www.richmond-philosophy.net/r...jp17_crome.pdf

On Speciesism and other subjects:
http://www.cns.nyu.edu/~pillow/gradf...hilosopher.pdf

And of course, a book I recommend on almost every subject:
'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins
It explains, among many other things, where our innate, inchoate 'moral compass' comes from.

[mal4mac]

If the baby grows up to be Adolf Hitler I don't think you can call that baby an intrinsic good (for you, or anyone else!) So all babies are not an intrinsic good. Are you arguing that some babies are intrinsic goods? If so, which ones?

The Greeks are very interesting on "intrinsic goods" - try reading "What is Ancient Philosophy?" by Pierre Hadot.

Epicurus suggested the only intrinsic good was pleasure, or freedom from pain.

The Stoics suggested the only intrinsic good was virtue (= courage, temperance, wisdom...)

For Aristotle the highest intrinsic good was contemplation, agreeing with the stoics here (contemplation = wisdom.) As this is also a pleasure (at least for me!) then you can see some agreement between the different Ancient schools (at least in my mind!)

The stoics thought that external goods are unnecessary and a hindrance to the pursuit of virtue (or pleasure) - as babies are very irritating to the philosopher trying to contemplate they are definitely not an intrinsic good to the philosopher.

One's own existence, obviously, is an intrinsic good, otherwise you could not partake of "ultimate" intrinsic goods (pleasure, virtue, ?,...) So a babies' existence *for itself* is an intrinsic good.

But babies can be very irritating to others (crying when you are trying to read Plato!) so they are definitely not intrinsic goods, as they interfere with the pursuit of ultimate intrinsic goods.

If you have a good nanny and thick walls then babies might fall into the category of "unnecessary but natural" goods, which the stoics did not ban, but suggest you try to minimize.

[Kyriakos]

I agree that contemplation seems to be the highest intrinsic good, although it should be meant as positive contemplation (i dont know what original word Aristotle used, but i suspect it was one with a clearly positive connotation)

Also it is a pleasure, and everything intrinsically good seems to be pleasurable, since it is rellevant to that which develops positively oneself.

There is also the notion of "neccessary evil", which is something that by itself is evil, but in time develops something good. For example hurting from problems is an evil, but it can lead to one forming a more stable psyche, which in turn will provide more options for pleasure.
Another example, from the material plane, is a medicine which tastes bad but will help one heal

[Cunninglinguist]

I understand your question not to be "is there anything intrinsically" good but "is there anything good for everything," because there are certain things that can be intrinsically good to one but not to another.

The only thing I can fathom that is good for everyone is good itself, yet this Epicurian veiwpoint is a blatant tautology.

I cannot think of a single action or type of action that would not have adverse effects on something. The baby will grow up to kill plants and animals in order to survive, therefore the baby is not good for these plants and animals. I challenge anyone who reads this to give me an example of something that does not cause adverse effects.

[Kyriakos]

I understand your question not to be "is there anything intrinsically" good but "is there anything good for everything," because there are certain things that can be intrinsically good to one but not to another.

The only thing I can fathom that is good for everyone is good itself, yet this Epicurian veiwpoint is a blatant tautology.

I cannot think of a single action or type of action that would not have adverse effects on something. The baby will grow up to kill plants and animals in order to survive, therefore the baby is not good for these plants and animals. I challenge anyone who reads this to give me an example of something that does not cause adverse effects.

What about pleasant and constructive thoughts?

To me at least it seems that they do not prodice anything negative, since most people have noticed that they can trust one if he is generally happy with himself and content, since he would try to maintain this, and one plane where he may be trying to maintain it would be in his relationships with other people.