GOOD person - subjective or objective?

[WildRanger]

Can someone be an objectively good person or is it just a subjective perception?
And why? What are your views?

[MirrorMask]

Good and evil are relative terms, depending mainly on the situation being discusses. If we look at the bigger picture, probably what would be good for the planet would be a mass extinction of mankind, so pulling a Thanos on humanity would be "good".

For sure in the modern society we could al mostly agree in what defines a good person when we see one (kind, selfless, doing things from which the community benefits), but then again, history is full of people who were truly convinced to be good, and considered as such by others, who actually caused a lot of grief or pain.

[Chino]

"Good" is entirely situational and subjective.

[Stadler]

Depends what you mean by "good".   

Personally, I think it's very subjective, but our society doesn't seem to agree.  Anyone ever watch "The Good Place"?   To watch that, you'd be told that the criteria for being "good" is very clear, very objective, and very... let's say "appealing to a certain electoral demographic". 
 
It's kind of why I adopted "Tend Your Own Garden" as a sort of personal motto, because it serves to allow the most people the most leeway to find their own course.

[Adami]

Every judgment, value, or description of something is subjective.



Except Stadler being wrong. That’s entirely objective.

[Chino]

Depends what you mean by "good".   

Personally, I think it's very subjective, but our society doesn't seem to agree.  Anyone ever watch "The Good Place"?   To watch that, you'd be told that the criteria for being "good" is very clear, very objective, and very... let's say "appealing to a certain electoral demographic". 

Are you current? That show goes out of its way to show how the idea of "good" is not black and white. The entire third season was about how trying to define "goodness" is flawed and might not be possible. Even having good intentions can often times have negative and unexpected consequences.

[Chino]

Every judgment, value, or description of something is subjective.

What about atomic mass?

[Adami]

Every judgment, value, or description of something is subjective.

What about atomic mass?

Well, since we made up the units of measurement, I’ll call that subjective too.

[The Walrus]

Every judgment, value, or description of something is subjective.

What about atomic mass?

Well, since we made up the units of measurement, I’ll call that subjective too.

I'm going to need more weed for this.

[Chino]

Every judgment, value, or description of something is subjective.

What about atomic mass?

Well, since we made up the units of measurement, I’ll call that subjective too.

Is that subjective though? The words we chose to label it, sure, but the count of something? A single proton is a single proton regardless where in the cosmos it resides or what intelligent being is observing it.

[Adami]

Then that’d be a measurement.

When I said value, I meant more worth. And description is more about observation. So I didn’t mean to include measurements.

[Stadler]

Depends what you mean by "good".   

Personally, I think it's very subjective, but our society doesn't seem to agree.  Anyone ever watch "The Good Place"?   To watch that, you'd be told that the criteria for being "good" is very clear, very objective, and very... let's say "appealing to a certain electoral demographic". 

Are you current? That show goes out of its way to show how the idea of "good" is not black and white. The entire third season was about how trying to define "goodness" is flawed and might not be possible. Even having good intentions can often times have negative and unexpected consequences.

I'm not current, so there's that.   But I'm referring to something along these lines (an excerpt from an interview with creater Matt Schur):

I’ve seen it suggested that the longer the show is around, the more it’s become an argument against the possibility of living an ethical life in a capitalist society. Does that feel accurate to you? And what kind of notes do you get from executives whenever Chidi or someone else riffs about capitalism?
We did not start with that observation — that late-stage capitalism makes life difficult — and work backward. We had a million discussions of why it would be hard to earn points, given the system we have laid out in the pilot, and this is where we ended up. (Also, importantly, we said from the beginning that the system itself is very elitist — regardless of era, the idea is that it was extremely hard to get in.) The idea that your actions have consequences — that they ripple out, and that you’re responsible for all of their effects — means that life in 2019 (or even 1919, or 1819) makes it very hard to avoid being dinged for things you didn’t even know you were doing. It’s a tangible way for us to express the frustration of trying to be ethical in the modern world. I am very Chidi-like in my own actions — how I spend money, the products I use, the food I buy — because I find it very hard to ignore the moral implications. I am aware that I fail, every day, to be a moral person. That has a lot to do with late-stage capitalism and its interconnected ethical traps. But it also has a lot to do with the fundamental impossibility of just being a human being on earth who tries to minimize his/her negative impact.

Then there's the various "movements" spawned out of the show.  The set, for example, is "plastic water bottle free", utilizes electric vans, and solar power where possible, and the writers are vegetarians.   (I can't seem to cite it, but there's an article in the September Rolling Stone that clearly articulates these concepts).   I  suppose you can argue that other groups can establish their own criteria, but if you're going to use a "point system" that implies an objective standard and a "right and wrong".

I may watch the series (big Ted Danson fan, even if I imagine our dinner together would be an animated conversation to say the least) to see in more detail how it's handled.   I have a couple weeks before the fall seasons start up in earnest. 

[Chino]

Depends what you mean by "good".   

Personally, I think it's very subjective, but our society doesn't seem to agree.  Anyone ever watch "The Good Place"?   To watch that, you'd be told that the criteria for being "good" is very clear, very objective, and very... let's say "appealing to a certain electoral demographic". 

Are you current? That show goes out of its way to show how the idea of "good" is not black and white. The entire third season was about how trying to define "goodness" is flawed and might not be possible. Even having good intentions can often times have negative and unexpected consequences.

I'm not current, so there's that.   But I'm referring to something along these lines (an excerpt from an interview with creater Matt Schur):

I’ve seen it suggested that the longer the show is around, the more it’s become an argument against the possibility of living an ethical life in a capitalist society. Does that feel accurate to you? And what kind of notes do you get from executives whenever Chidi or someone else riffs about capitalism?
*Snip*

I may watch the series (big Ted Danson fan, even if I imagine our dinner together would be an animated conversation to say the least) to see in more detail how it's handled.   I have a couple weeks before the fall seasons start up in earnest.

I hear you. I haven't really observed anything anti-capitalist if that's what you're getting at. Like the answer alluded to, capitalism in it's current state make the difference between right and wrong (or good or bad) that much more difficult. It's difficult for one to know just how far their actions reach. The show is just acknowledging the reality of that. You might be trying to do a good thing by purchasing an electric car, but if that electric car has seats that were stitched in a child-labor factory in Malaysia, are you still good? 

I'd recommend watching the show. For one thing, it's different than anything else. It feels fresh. It's also pretty thought provoking at times, despite the humor. It's good.

[cramx3]

Every judgment, value, or description of something is subjective.

What about atomic mass?

Well, since we made up the units of measurement, I’ll call that subjective too.

I'm going to need more weed for this.

 

[H2]

By "objective" I take it that you mean "opinion-independent", and by "subjective" I take it that you mean "opinion-dependent". This seems to be the distinction, based on the initial question of the OP.

I pretty much agree with Aristotle's general conception of goodness and virtue. This is my opinion and I'll give the justification for my opinion in a second. To summarize Aristotle, goodness is objective. That's not to say that goodness can't also be situational, context-dependent, culture-dependent, or person-relative. Goodness involves the fullest actualization of the potential of a thing. So a "good" knife cuts well, a "good" dog isn't trapped indoors, and a "good" human being is one such that that human being lives in a circumstance and has an inward character that is conducive to human flourishing. That is the general structure of virtue theory, and the particularities of what counts as "human flourishing" are to be filled in by virtue theorists. Aristotle, for example, thinks that human flourishing is a life of excellent rational activity. I would subscribe to virtue theory generally, and my particular view is that that human flourishing is communion with God and the rest of humanity.

So there are external factors and internal factors that contribute to a person's "goodness". A morally flawless person who is severely handicapped is not living "the good life", and conversely a morally base person who has everything they could ever want is also not living "the good life". Moreover, what counts as the good life for a human being is person-relative in its particulars, because we all have different innate passions and personalities. (But "person-relative" does not mean "contingent on perception", so what's best for a person is still an objective matter!) The good life for one might be to become a master chef, the good life for another might be to become an ascetic monk. But there are general features of the good life for human beings, such as living in community, loving others, being loved, being in communion with God, being virtuous (e.g., possessing generosity, magnanimity, courage, etc..), exercising rationality and one's intellectual faculties.

So, justification for my opinion: there is a set of ethical questions that we need good answers to:
- What makes an action right or wrong?
- What makes a person good or bad?
- What makes for the good life?
- What makes a thing valuable in itself?
- Why are human beings imbued with special moral worth?
- Why are human beings obligated to help those who can't help themselves?
- Why be moral, even when it's not in your self-interest to do so?

When you set up the list of major moral theories on offer--JS Mill's utilitarianism, Kant's deonotology, natural law theory, moral nihilism, moral relativism, Aristotle's virtue ethics--I think Aristotle's virtue ethics gives the most coherent and persuasive set of answers to the questions above and makes the most sense of our moral experience. I think it's tempting for materialists to think that there is no real value, no such thing as goodness/rightness/"the good life" when they presuppose that all that exists is matter and energy. So much the worse for materialism, if that's what it entails. I think our moral experience should be taken seriously, and any worldview that implies that our moral experience is illusory should be immediately suspect if not outright dismissed.

[Stadler]

By "objective" I take it that you mean "opinion-independent", and by "subjective" I take it that you mean "opinion-dependent". This seems to be the distinction, based on the initial question of the OP.

I pretty much agree with Aristotle's general conception of goodness and virtue. This is my opinion and I'll give the justification for my opinion in a second. To summarize Aristotle, goodness is objective. That's not to say that goodness can't also be situational, context-dependent, culture-dependent, or person-relative. Goodness involves the fullest actualization of the potential of a thing. So a "good" knife cuts well, a "good" dog isn't trapped indoors, and a "good" human being is one such that that human being lives in a circumstance and has an inward character that is conducive to human flourishing. That is the general structure of virtue theory, and the particularities of what counts as "human flourishing" are to be filled in by virtue theorists. Aristotle, for example, thinks that human flourishing is a life of excellent rational activity. I would subscribe to virtue theory generally, and my particular view is that that human flourishing is communion with God and the rest of humanity.

I certainly see the merits of this argument, but as relates to the real world, it has problems.   For one, what is the obligation to fully actualize?   There's the obvious; is Eddie Van Halen "bad" because he's not prolific enough?  What about Myles Kennedy, who's arguably a better guitar player than singer, or Dave Grohl who's arguably a better drummer than a guitar player; are they "bad" because they're not maximizing their potential? 

I see the value in this approach, but I struggle with the relationship to the real world around us.  To your point below, you ask "why are human beings obligated to help those who can't help themselves"; who says they ARE obligated?  I don't have any problem with altruism, or charitable endeavors. I bristle at being told that it's an obligation. 

When you set up the list of major moral theories on offer--JS Mill's utilitarianism, Kant's deonotology, natural law theory, moral nihilism, moral relativism, Aristotle's virtue ethics--I think Aristotle's virtue ethics gives the most coherent and persuasive set of answers to the questions above and makes the most sense of our moral experience. I think it's tempting for materialists to think that there is no real value, no such thing as goodness/rightness/"the good life" when they presuppose that all that exists is matter and energy. So much the worse for materialism, if that's what it entails. I think our moral experience should be taken seriously, and any worldview that implies that our moral experience is illusory should be immediately suspect if not outright dismissed.

I don't at all consider myself a materialist, but I certainly have problems with the moral experience side of things.  I'm confident and comfortable in my moral outlook, I have no desire or need to share or force my morals on anyone else, but really REALLY have a hard time with the idea of others imposing their morals on me.   

[H2]

I certainly see the merits of this argument, but as relates to the real world, it has problems.   For one, what is the obligation to fully actualize?   There's the obvious; is Eddie Van Halen "bad" because he's not prolific enough?  What about Myles Kennedy, who's arguably a better guitar player than singer, or Dave Grohl who's arguably a better drummer than a guitar player; are they "bad" because they're not maximizing their potential? 

Re: those rock stars, I did say that the good life (i.e., maximizing one's potential) is person-relative. So the fact that I don't play drums, even though I could, does not mean I'm not living the good life. You might think, though, that I am being incoherent, because after all, don't I have the potential to be a drummer, and didn't I just say that the good life is actualization of one's potential? And aren't different potentialities mutually incompatible? And don't I have the potential to be a murderer, so doesn't Aristotle's theory imply that therefore it would be good for me to go out and be a murderer? I feel those objections and sympathize with them somewhat, but I think that Aristotle's notion of "potential" is narrower than the very general sense of "potential" when I say, for example, that I have the potential for being a murderer. I'm not quite sure what's involved, but I think it's what we mean to aim at when we say things like "I want to realize my potential." I know that's not a fine-grained definition, but roughly that's what I mean, and what I think Aristotle means, by "potential".

I see the value in this approach, but I struggle with the relationship to the real world around us.  To your point below, you ask "why are human beings obligated to help those who can't help themselves"; who says they ARE obligated?  I don't have any problem with altruism, or charitable endeavors. I bristle at being told that it's an obligation.

Fair enough, I am presupposing that we do have obligations to help fellow members of the human race who can't help themselves. That's just one of those fundamental things I believe. I guess I would chalk it up as a "basic fact of moral experience." If you see a drowning child in a puddle who you could easily save, I think you have an obligation to pick them up out of the water. You'd be wrong not to. That said, IDK how far our obligations extend or how much is required of us. Am I obligated to give away everything I make to charities that support AIDS victims in Nigeria? I don't know, but I do believe that generally, we are obligated to help those who can't help themselves.

Maybe you just don't like the language of obligation? Suppose I put it this way: we should help people who can't help themselves. We ought to help the needy, poor, sick, and lonely. That's all I mean to say when I say we have an "obligation" to help.

I don't at all consider myself a materialist, but I certainly have problems with the moral experience side of things.  I'm confident and comfortable in my moral outlook, I have no desire or need to share or force my morals on anyone else, but really REALLY have a hard time with the idea of others imposing their morals on me.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the moral experience side of things," or what problems you would have with it. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by saying you have a "really REALLY hard time" with people imposing their morals on you. Are you just reporting a psychological fact about yourself, or are you saying that people shouldn't impose their moral beliefs on others? If the former, OK; but if the latter, you are contradicting yourself, because you are imposing your belief that "people shouldn't impose their moral beliefs on others" onto others.

[Zook]

Stealing is a crime, and considered bad by most standards, but if your family is starving, and close to death, and the only way to survive is to steal, is the act of stealing still bad? Sure, but are you a bad person for doing so if it's to keep your family alive? Absolutely not. There is no objective morality, and good and bad are subjective terms.

[Stadler]

Re: those rock stars, I did say that the good life (i.e., maximizing one's potential) is person-relative. So the fact that I don't play drums, even though I could, does not mean I'm not living the good life. You might think, though, that I am being incoherent, because after all, don't I have the potential to be a drummer, and didn't I just say that the good life is actualization of one's potential? And aren't different potentialities mutually incompatible? And don't I have the potential to be a murderer, so doesn't Aristotle's theory imply that therefore it would be good for me to go out and be a murderer? I feel those objections and sympathize with them somewhat, but I think that Aristotle's notion of "potential" is narrower than the very general sense of "potential" when I say, for example, that I have the potential for being a murderer. I'm not quite sure what's involved, but I think it's what we mean to aim at when we say things like "I want to realize my potential." I know that's not a fine-grained definition, but roughly that's what I mean, and what I think Aristotle means, by "potential".

Pointing out the obvious here, but there's a point at which the "personal-relative" moves the discussion itself from "objective" to "subjective".  Is "potential" measured by "the greatest objective value to mankind"?  Or "the best you can be in whatever little niche you think you should be in"?    We're using broad examples here, but let's use a non-obvious one:  Kendall Jenner.  By some standards, she has blown her potential out of the water; she is, by some standards, monumentally successful.  Are her achievements "good for mankind"?   How can we even know? Is her "girl power" message important? Or is her crass materiality and self-focus damaging?

Fair enough, I am presupposing that we do have obligations to help fellow members of the human race who can't help themselves. That's just one of those fundamental things I believe. I guess I would chalk it up as a "basic fact of moral experience." If you see a drowning child in a puddle who you could easily save, I think you have an obligation to pick them up out of the water. You'd be wrong not to. That said, IDK how far our obligations extend or how much is required of us. Am I obligated to give away everything I make to charities that support AIDS victims in Nigeria? I don't know, but I do believe that generally, we are obligated to help those who can't help themselves.

Maybe you just don't like the language of obligation? Suppose I put it this way: we should help people who can't help themselves. We ought to help the needy, poor, sick, and lonely. That's all I mean to say when I say we have an "obligation" to help.

I disagree with "should". I disagree with ANY obligation on it's face.  If that's a three-year-old Osama bin Laden, do I still have to?   Personally, I DO agree that we help those who can't help themselves, and I try to do that as much as I can in my life; but I object when I'm "told" to ("told" used broadly).   I'm also objecting to the "how"; one of the problems here is that it not only assumes an obligation, but it assumes a "help".   Use politics:  many claim that the ACA is a mechanism to "help those that can't help themselves".  I'm not sure I could come up with a WORSE example of that if I was asked.   

I'm not sure what you mean by "the moral experience side of things," or what problems you would have with it. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by saying you have a "really REALLY hard time" with people imposing their morals on you. Are you just reporting a psychological fact about yourself, or are you saying that people shouldn't impose their moral beliefs on others? If the former, OK; but if the latter, you are contradicting yourself, because you are imposing your belief that "people shouldn't impose their moral beliefs on others" onto others.

Well, I do mean both.  I'm sharing a psychological fact about myself, but I do believe people shouldn't impose their morals on others.   And no, I don't think that's a fair logical conclusion; this isn't Neal Peart's "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice" thing.  It's not a bilateral, yes-no situation.  The choices are not mutually exclusive.   There's a level at which we can quantify the amount of "choice".    If there are 100 people in a room, and we pick a moral dilemma - the death penalty, since we're talking about that elsewhere - some percentage are going to agree with my moral position on that, and some are not. If I can impose my morality on others, then there's a percentage of people that are denied their autonomy, and their free will.  Their moral positioning is rendered valueless.   If I cannot, there are still certain percentages that agree and certain percentages that don't, but ALL have their autonomy as human beings, and their free will (I know some here do not strictly believe in free will, but I'm using the term broadly here). 

Now we can parse this to "well, what about the people that do not want to decide for themselves; they want others to decide their morals for them", they can still personally elect to accept someone elses' moral positioning (this happens all the time). 

You can keep taking steps backwards until you fall into a fountain; there's a point at which this is ALL just "one man's viewpoint".   I don't know how you get around that; if one believes that no one should be able to choose for themselves, and EVERYONE'S position should be decided by someone else, then yeah, I suppose I'm foisting my beliefs on you.   But in that case, they're not really my beliefs are they, because they've been foisted on me by someone else, no?   

[H2]

Pointing out the obvious here, but there's a point at which the "personal-relative" moves the discussion itself from "objective" to "subjective". 

Is "potential" measured by "the greatest objective value to mankind"?  Or "the best you can be in whatever little niche you think you should be in"?    We're using broad examples here, but let's use a non-obvious one:  Kendall Jenner.  By some standards, she has blown her potential out of the water; she is, by some standards, monumentally successful.  Are her achievements "good for mankind"?   How can we even know? Is her "girl power" message important? Or is her crass materiality and self-focus damaging?

I don't know anything about Kendall Jenner, but to respond to your first point, I think it can be objectively true that what is best for an individual is independent of that person's perceptions or opinions. Take a rebellious teen, for instance. They might believe with all their heart that the gang life, drugs, etc. is the best life for them. But it is not the best life for them. So there's at least one case where what is the best life for an individual is not what that individual thinks is the best life for them. Then I think you can generalize the principle. Just because I think that being a meat-eater, say, is included in the best life for me, I might be dead wrong about that.

I disagree with "should". I disagree with ANY obligation on it's face.  If that's a three-year-old Osama bin Laden, do I still have to?   Personally, I DO agree that we help those who can't help themselves, and I try to do that as much as I can in my life; but I object when I'm "told" to ("told" used broadly).   I'm also objecting to the "how"; one of the problems here is that it not only assumes an obligation, but it assumes a "help".   Use politics:  many claim that the ACA is a mechanism to "help those that can't help themselves".  I'm not sure I could come up with a WORSE example of that if I was asked.

I suspect you just don't like the language of "obligation" but I think that we fundamentally agree. Do you think that any particular action is wrong? Raping someone, for example? I think you would say yes. And then I would say that you do think we have obligations. I'm using the phrase "we have an obligation to X" synonymously with "it is wrong to refrain from doing X". As for the ACA case, I do agree with you that it is championed by certain people as an embodiment of some moral principle. Surely it is right to help those who can't help themselves, and there is a sense in which we have a moral obligation to help those who can't help themselves. But it doesn't follow that there should then be a legal obligation to help others, or that the ACA is even the best legal implementation of that moral principle in the first place. I think we would agree on that point.

Well, I do mean both.  I'm sharing a psychological fact about myself, but I do believe people shouldn't impose their morals on others.   And no, I don't think that's a fair logical conclusion; this isn't Neal Peart's "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice" thing.  It's not a bilateral, yes-no situation.  The choices are not mutually exclusive.   There's a level at which we can quantify the amount of "choice".    If there are 100 people in a room, and we pick a moral dilemma - the death penalty, since we're talking about that elsewhere - some percentage are going to agree with my moral position on that, and some are not. If I can impose my morality on others, then there's a percentage of people that are denied their autonomy, and their free will.  Their moral positioning is rendered valueless.   If I cannot, there are still certain percentages that agree and certain percentages that don't, but ALL have their autonomy as human beings, and their free will (I know some here do not strictly believe in free will, but I'm using the term broadly here). 

Now we can parse this to "well, what about the people that do not want to decide for themselves; they want others to decide their morals for them", they can still personally elect to accept someone elses' moral positioning (this happens all the time). 

You can keep taking steps backwards until you fall into a fountain; there's a point at which this is ALL just "one man's viewpoint".   I don't know how you get around that; if one believes that no one should be able to choose for themselves, and EVERYONE'S position should be decided by someone else, then yeah, I suppose I'm foisting my beliefs on you.   But in that case, they're not really my beliefs are they, because they've been foisted on me by someone else, no? 

Surely some people should be stopped and condemned for their behavior, though. Rapists, child molesters, murderers. We shouldn't be afraid to "impose our morality" on such persons. If you disagree, then I think we just have fundamentally different intuitions about the nature of right and wrong.

[Stadler]

Surely some people should be stopped and condemned for their behavior, though. Rapists, child molesters, murderers. We shouldn't be afraid to "impose our morality" on such persons. If you disagree, then I think we just have fundamentally different intuitions about the nature of right and wrong.

"Morality" and "behavior" are not the same thing.  I don't hold child molesters or rapists to account because I morally disagree with them.  I hold them to account because they violate a fundamental right of autonomy of another.  If you want to masturbate to computer-generated images of naked prepubescent children, have at it.  I'm not here to tell you you're "immoral" (even if I think it to be aberrant and degenerative, in my opinion).   I personally am opposed to the premeditative, purposeful killing of another human; call that a moral position, if you will, but I don't impose that on anyone else.  If the legislative process deems capital punishment legal, so be it.  And I say, if it's the law, then use it, or take it off the books.   I'm pro-choice, precisely because I don't want to impose my will on others.   

And don't misunderstand; I have a moral code, and I try my best to live up to it; I wish I was perfect, but I'm not, though I think I'm well in the black on that count.