Remove this ad
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Greater Good
Posted 2/18/13 , edited 2/20/13
This concept had different meanings to different people. Could be based on religious doctrines or some sort of general wisdom. What is your definition of greater good? Why might you argue it against another?
27425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 2/19/13
I would say the greater good is every living being in the universe.
19405 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Delaware
Online
Posted 2/19/13
"Greater good", in the simplest of terms, means sacrifice.
7322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / in my living room...
Offline
Posted 2/19/13

tehstud wrote:

"Greater good", in the simplest of terms, means sacrifice.


I agree with this poster. Also I would like to add, respect, dignity, for those around you

2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 2/20/13 , edited 2/20/13
Before asking what the Greater Good is, the more fundamental question of what Good is must be answered. As I am a Utilitarian, all Good is the greater Good, because what is Good is what benefit the most, and so is 'greater' than the other options, which benefits fewer people, or else harm a greater amount of people.
416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Los Angeles
Offline
Posted 2/20/13
^This
27425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 2/21/13

longfenglim wrote:

Before asking what the Greater Good is, the more fundamental question of what Good is must be answered. As I am a Utilitarian, all Good is the greater Good, because what is Good is what benefit the most, and so is 'greater' than the other options, which benefits fewer people, or else harm a greater amount of people.


I would say that Good is complete perfection, unscathed and untainted in any way.
Posted 2/21/13 , edited 3/2/13

longfenglim wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

Before asking what the Greater Good is, the more fundamental question of what Good is must be answered. As I am a Utilitarian, all Good is the greater Good, because what is Good is what benefit the most, and so is 'greater' than the other options, which benefits fewer people, or else harm a greater amount of people.


I would say that Good is complete perfection, unscathed and untainted in any way.


You would be wrong.


Would it be so wrong to object to the views of all other people when your own are so pristine? There can be no alternative if that is how your mind is made up. Does seeing things from different perspectives offend you? Surely it must, since we are required be so steadfast when asked what our absolute opinions are, while discounting so insistently upon the opposing views of your fellow people. If we all perceived everything the same way, it would be the only way to define what good is from some human perspective, but as it is so, that we are all so different, there can be no exact definition of good, though there can, and will, be definitions of good for each person.

If good is to be good, then it must have its own set-in-stone, infallible morals of which cultivate only beneficial outcomes. When we see everything in the long view, all matters are worked out, and the continuum of reality itself never fails, and it shows that there is some real and perceivable good at work, though not all of us will attain the enlightenment to see it.

I tire of this discussion for now, mongrels. *disappears*

jakari 
48639 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / US
Offline
Posted 2/22/13



Would it be so wrong to object to the views of all other people when your own are so pristine? There can be no alternative if that is how your mind is made up. Does seeing things from different perspectives offend you? Surely it must, since we are required be so steadfast when asked what our absolute opinions are, while discounting so insistently upon the opposing views of your fellow people. If we all perceived everything the same way, it would be the only way to define what good is from some human perspective, but as it is so, that we are all so different, there can be no exact definition of good, though there can, and will, be definitions of good for each person.

If good is to be good, then it must have its own set-in-stone, infallible morals of which cultivate only beneficial outcomes. When we see everything in the long view, all matters are worked out, and the continuum of reality itself never fails, and it shows that there is some real and perceivable good at work, though not all of us will attain the enlightenment to see it.

I tire of this discussion for now, mongrels. *disappears*



I agree.. I don't believe in good and bad, right or wrong. Just left and right paths. We do what is right by our own perceptions. And staying true to your own belief is what is important.
Wihl 
14543 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
L5
Online
Posted 2/28/13
The term "greater good" scares me. It has been used in various forms for millennium to justify violence.
9546 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 2/28/13
When the greater good is usually discussed in philosophy, it generally means the greater good of society rather than individual welfare. A more utilitarian approach.

What makes something wrong and what makes something right? Obviously, if the greater good exists then it must be objective, meaning subjective perception of the greater good is wrong, and must be universal. Now, others believe that the greater good can be the will of God or some underlying moral principles that can be attained through reason.

The greater good can deal with an aesthetic or perfectionist way of life, but that does not guarantee someone will be well-off or incredibly happy if they lived a life focusing on obtaining eudaimonia or something of that nature.

It can deal with a teleological perspective, but it's more of a number game with a cost-benefit analysis rather than just a simple moral code. Example: Killing is bad. However, if you could cure cancer forever by the push of button, but in turn will kill one healthy person (You don't know who it will be), will you do it? The problem with this is a moral dilemma, but if you accept the whole of society to one person you do condone the killing of a person for this greater good of society. The problem with this approach is, of course, many things. I will only focus on the biggest issue which is using the persons as a means to an end than an end in itself. Kant puts it better: "Act to treat humanity, whether yourself or another, as an end-in-itself and never as a means."

When you cease to use people as in end in itself, the greater good is not good. Why? Because if good is objective, it can not sway to and fro just based on mere perception or different societal norms through temporal space and time. Now, something can be intrinsic, a good in itself, without being moral. However, in most cases religious doctrines or people have related the two.(It is necessary for morality to be intrinsic, but it is not necessary for a good to be moral, but can be sufficiently intrinsic.)

To wrap it up without making this an entire essay, I believe the greater good is objective, is not utilitarian, is intrinsic, and deals with sentient beings to use them as an end and not as a means to an end.
In modern language: Yo' bro. You need to chill out and treat everyone equally and with a duty to do them good. Doing them good, does yourself good. :-D
1096 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
99 / F
Offline
Posted 3/24/13
A reason used that was, for me, never justified,
27425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 3/24/13
I agree, utilitarianism is never justified.
Posted 4/3/13

tehstud wrote:

"Greater good", in the simplest of terms, means sacrifice.


Yeah, agree with this one
Eater of Worlds
Bedlam 
55156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / East Coastin'
Offline
Posted 4/3/13
First thing that came to my head was, "the ends justify the means." sacrificing a few to save many. good in this sense is subjective and dependent on what someone is trying to accomplish. like killing off millions of infected cows to prevent the spread of mad cow disease. or dropping 2 atomic bombs over japan in ww2 to avoid the potential for more american solider deaths if the war dragged on.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.