More on Good
After that great game, I decided to go back studying.
I get irritated when people say that atheists can’t be good. After that, they justify the argument that "without God, there is no ‘good’"
I disagree. Plato has a very good argument against this one in his dialogue Euthyphro.
Plato considered the suggestion that it is divine it is divine approval that makes an action good. Plato pointed out that if this were the case, we could not say that God approves of the actions because the actions are good. Why then does God approve of this action and not otherwise? Is their approval entirely arbitrary? Plato considered this impossible and so held that there must be some stardandards of right and wrong that are idependent of the likes and dislikes of God.
What if you say that God is good and that he could not possibly allow torchering the second graders? Well, if you say this, you would have tacitly admitted that their is a standard of goodness that is independent of God. Oh yeah, this would also contradict the omnipotency of God.
It seems therefore that, even for those who believe in God, it is impossible to give a satisfactory accouint of the origin of morality in terms of divine creation.
Again, science gives a much better explanation on this. One probably explanation on the origin of morality is evolution. As long as the cost of helping others are less than the benefits for being helped and as long as animals will not gain in the long run by "cheating" — that is to say, by, recieving favors without returning them. It would seem that the best way to ensure that those who cheat do not prosper is for animals to be able to recognize cheats and refuse them the benefits of cooperation the next time around.
I believe that an action has no intrinsic value on goodness.
Things only have the value that we give them
-Molière
Here’s an example why I think so….
…The Greek historian Heroditus realates that Darius king of Persia, once summoned Greeks before him and asked them how much he would have to pay for them to eat their father’s bodies. They refues too do it any price. Then Darius brought some Indians who by custom ate the bodies of their parents and asked them what would make them willing to burn their father’s bodies. The Indians cried out that he should not mention such a horrid act. Herodetus drew the obvious moral that each nation thinks its own custom is best.
The book "Origin and Development of Moral Ideas" by Edward Westermarck explains that:
No ethical principles can be valid except in the terms of society in which they are held. Words such as good and bad just mean, it is claimed, "approved in my society" or "dissaproved in my society", and so to search for an objective, or rationally justifiable, ethic is to search for what is in fact an illusion.
I have now found the definition of good. Still, this is debatable; but this is my personal view on what is good.
Next, I need to find out, what is beauty? What is its purpose? When do physical vibrations become music? What is its criteria? Okay, I’m off for more answers!
