Good
What’s the meaning of this concept?
A desired state
What is the purpose of it?
To guide a will.
To have a will is to have a preference which requires a perception of good.
A will manifests action which provides change towards alleged good,
it hints on the absence of good, as more information is obtained, a different idea of good arises.
How does it exist?
It is fundamental to existence.
If a single action must occur out of many different options,
A method of determination must exist.
Why should it exist?
As existing beings who are happy we wish for what enables existence.
How is it expressed?
A preference.
To be able to deem something better one must
In a world without desire, the good and the bad have no expression.
Different types of good
-
Subjective good
The desire of an individual.
-
Objective good
An aspiration shared by all.
An aspiration needs not be conscious, if an action is deemed objective good while some entities object to it due to their lack of awareness of its potential to produce an effect they indeed do desire, they technically do aspire for that action to occur.
Since aspirations are judged by the attitude towards an outcome - not a process.
The more similarities entities share the more desires they’re likely to share as well.
While objective good is hard to confirm, adhering to the desire of the majority is closing in on the objective.
The intensity of the desire is surely a crucial part of the formula.
To demonstrate how intensity is more important than quantity here’s an example:
That means that perhaps X number of entities have desire no.1,
and X-1 entities have desire no.2 that conflicts with no.1,
but the fewer who seek desire no.2 feel a stronger longing for it compared to the group who aspires to fulfill desire no.1
Preservation of existence ensures the option of an idea to remanifest.
Even if the entity desires to cease to exist, continuation of existence keeps alive the option of that idea to remanifest in a version that does wish to exist.
Much of our experience in the world is determined by our surroundings.
If we were to only rely on coincidental synchronization between the subjective and the objective desires of individuals, the amount of objective good we’d witness would be extremely low, therefore a conscious prioritization of the objective is necessary.
For such a state to occur, helping an individual increase their satisfaction of life helps promote the chances of them applying a similar desired behavior. (The happier an aware entity is, the more likely it is to prioritize the objective).
In the hope of creating a better world, the method required is increasing the spectrum of worst suffering and best happiness… downwards.
That way the threshold moves down the axis, pushing their current state closer to prioritizing objective good.
A good metaphor would be that we’re containers of feeling good - and when we’re full, we’re okay with giving up the possibility of feeling good, because there isn’t really more good to obtain for us.
Like a bottle of water filled to its fullest, so pouring further water will drip and be given to others.
(So imagine half a bottle laying with its open side upwards, people are different sizes of bottle, each laying at a different degree - so they start pouring at different levels of happiness, each has a different angle change threshold that can cause them to pour even more the happier they are)
To phrase it simply, we’re charged with good energy when we experience good feelings and we lose that energy when we use it (only on others?) or experience bad things, the greater the sacrifice in question the happier the decision maker must be to make that sacrifice.
After we help charge another person with positive energy, they’re more inclined to pass it on, potentially to many others, but at least to one other person, in a kind world, that energy will be preserved until it is passed on and will eventually… return to you, either directly or by returning to one of your loved ones, which will make them happy, and seeing them in such a state will… make you happy as well.
An unhappy being with awareness is losing the relevance of awareness, regressing back to animalistic instinctive behavior without concern for rationality.
Bad
What’s the meaning of this concept?
An undesired state.
The good and the bad are always judged from the present, whether something will increase my feeling of good or decrease it.
The good and the bad can only exist together.
They balance each other, since the intensity of an experience is determined by its frequency,
So even if good occurs less than bad, it increases the intensity of the good, maintaining an equilibrium of intensity.
What is the purpose of it?
To
How does it exist?
It
Why should it exist?
As
How is it expressed?
Avoidance
Different types of bad
-
Subjective bad
-
Objective bad
An
Ethics
What’s the meaning of this concept?
The study of objective good
The relationship between an individual and society
The way you’re told to behave
Behavior that determines systematic judgment
The way a person will choose to behave according to the information available.
Things you’re told not to do
Good and bad aspects in regard to actions that impact the mass.
What is the purpose of it?
To bring harmony and to increase the average experience of good
The variety of moralities across existence inevitably cause a good amount of conflicts,
How does it exist?
It
Why should it exist?
As
How is it expressed?
How are ethics decided?
If I don't kill you for your opinion that I don't like, it means I don't consider my ego to be 1M times more important than yours, because if I did, then it would make sense that my short discomfort is worth your whole life. The source of ethical behaviour is thus not to think we are too important.
Through the amount of supporters of each desire relative to their model of priority.
From a collective point of view, some part of the model will likely be shared among an absolute majority of that collective, establishing a consensus among the participants, which enables them to function as a community, allowing the minority to take part under the condition of playing along.
The ethical judgment of the conscious mind is subjected to the context of a situation.
Logically speaking, the bigger the frame of reference the more value its ethics hold.
Therefore existence holds the value of ethics in their purest form.
Actions that contribute to the will of the world such as perseverance of existence are considered "good" while actions that lead to the opposite are considered "bad".
Predicting the future to such a scale is impossible therefore logic acts as the best tool for guidance.
For example, given the fact we do not know how life came to be, it is too risky to allow life to end, although humanity possesses a great threat on the existence of life, it just as much possesses the potential of preserving it, therefore, anything that may end life as we know it can be considered "bad" from an existential point of view.
This passage raises the question of whether there is a point to life if it is revealed that what is good for humanity is bad for existence, However, because humanity has the power to preserve and cultivate existence, what’s good for humanity is potentially good for the world, for it promotes human action for the good of the world.
As long as there is good in the world (from a human perspective), life is worth living. This highlights that even in cases where there may be a conflict between what is good for humanity and what is good for existence, the concept of "good" can still be a motivator and a reason to continue living.
For consciousness to prioritize the needs of the greater good above its own, it must first love the greater good.
Which is better, a static world that shall remain forever,
or an evolving one that shall meet its end?
According to the theory of the will, existence will always exist, so the choice of a static world, acts solely as a sacrifice of potential.
If existence will remain forever, then how can something be bad for it?
Either there’s a different goal other than existing or that existence can end.
The goal is most likely the existence of all that can potentially exist, in other words the manifestation of the metaphysical, which is theoretically, eternal.
How can one be ethical?
The subjective can not be removed from the objective.
The conscious desire to prioritize the objective good over the subjective good can’t exist without the actor’s respect being above the threshold required towards the objective action.
Meaning if an entity lacks respect towards the target it won’t be able to prioritize the objective good, regardless of its magnitude.
For example,
A person who’s been living a life of misery, torture, and pain, is offered two choices, The first, to end all suffering and live the perfect life, a dream come true, but the world will come to an end at the end of their life span
The second, to continue living life unchanged, promising the continuation of the world.
Such a person has no reason to choose the latter.
Why should one be ethical?
To charge others with good energy - increases the chances for them to do good as well. For example, I am thirsty, and I want to drink this bottle of water.
Instead I split it into glasses of water, and give each to different thirsty children of wealthy men who were absent at the moment to care for their child.
They are now charged with happiness knowing their children were in good care,
and they offer my town a supply of water.
In other words, I can exchange my immediate subjective experience of good, to create a good experience for others, charging them with good energy, allowing them to do the same. creating a loophole of endless good energy.
Luckily this is possible due to the fact different entities perceive different values, I can grant someone water while they offer me bread, for I value bread over water, and they value water over bread, each feeling fulfilled, knowing they were given more than they gave.
The motive can either be to do good, or to expect good in return, regardless, what was done is good.
Different types of ethics
-
Consequentialist
Utilitarianism
The greatest good for the greatest number
While some may think it means taking well-being to be the only intrinsic value and giving equal weight to everyone’s well-being
Focusing on maximizing overall happiness or minimizing suffering.
The right action is the one that produces the best outcome for the most people (Bentham and Mill are the classics here). It’s results-focused, even if that means tough trade-offs.
Pinpointing what everybody agrees on as a source of happiness and what’s the right course of action to achieve it is a common difficulty in the utilitarian approach.
Utility is the property of producing pleasure and preventing pain
A concept that suggests acts that seem bad can be justified for a greater good - to maximize utility.
Since we always prioritize our own necessities over that of a stranger, one approach that is offered is to judge a situation from the POV of a bystander, a neutral observer.
if we can make things better but won’t bother - we’re also liable for the consequences.
The gray area of this approach would be such scenario for example:-
The famous trolly problem,
Train tracks split to two different paths, one leads to a single philanthropic the other to 5 criminals, sounds like a no-brainer, but what about the future, what if this situation will enlighten the criminals making them better people, while the philanthropist will feel like his work is futile if the world is cruel to him regardless? -
A doctor has 5 different patients who require 5 different organ donations, and aren’t likely to survive if they’ll rely on the waiting list, however he has a neighbor who’s an isolated loser with a perfect match to all patients, no one will notice his absence, according to the logic of classic-utilitarianism, the best thing to do would be to kill that neighbor and use his organs to save the other five, one innocent man dies, but other 5 innocent people live.
This is a very dark and scary approach to life, so a different attitude was introduced, rule-utilitarianism, which states we should live by logic and determine the greatest good in the long term on a larger scale, afterall in the scenario we described, a possible byproduct would be constant fear in society of being a victim to such scenarios, which is a bigger problem than saving some innocent lives.
Another argument would be to criticize the approach of saving the lives of the weak especially at the cost of the strong and healthy, since in the long run,
A quality DNA is more essential to humanity as a species.
A < B < C < D < E
A = 1 death
B = X mutilations
C = Y Minor injuries
D = Z Headaches
E = W Inconveniences
A < E -
Felicific calculus
A formula designed to determine which action should be prioritized.
based on:-
Intensity - Which is stronger
-
Duration - Which is longer
-
Certainty - Which has a higher chance of occuring
-
Propinquity - Which is sooner
-
Fecundity - Probability of further consecutive pleasures
-
Purity - Which is less evil and more pure
-
Extent - Which benefits the majority
Pleasure - Pain = Outcome
If the outcome is positive, then the act is good.
-
-
-
Categorical imperatives
Consider the reason behind your actions and apply it as a universal law, can the world operate under such law? If you justify stealing because you’re hungry and you forgot your wallet, then everyone in your situation can and should steal, making life as a society impractical.
It’s not okay to make exceptions for yourself.
Moral rules apply to everyone, all the time and equally.
The problem with that approach is that inevitably some scenarios will obviously require doing what is usually considered immoral… for the greater good.
Humans aren’t objects, while chairs exist so they can be sat on, humans exist for their own existence, so they must not be treated as objects, but be treated in consideration of being the end-in-herself, not means to an end.
This does not mean we can not use people, but simply not only perceive humans as tools to be used.
-
Hypothetical imperatives
Commands you should follow if you want to do something, based on your desires, so for example if you want to have money you oughta go get a job to earn money, if you’re hungry you oughta go eat.
These aren’t about morality, but rather prudence
Do the right thing for the right reason regardless of the consequences. If we would wish everyone to act a certain way, that action becomes the moral imperative to all (the universalizing principle). Example: we would wish that everyone tell the truth (not lie); therefore, it is morally imperative that all people be truthful and not lie.
-
Deontology
Focuses on rules and duties. Right actions are right regardless of consequences (Kant is big here).
-
Virtue ethics
Virtue ethics
Emphasizes character and moral virtues over rules or outcomes (Aristotle's lane).
-
Contractarianism
Morality based on social contracts and mutual agreement (think Hobbes, Locke, Rawls).
-
Care ethics
Stresses relationships, empathy, and care over abstract principles (often associated with feminist ethics).
-
Natural law
Morality rooted in human nature and reason, often tied to religious tradition (Aquinas, for instance).
Morality
What’s the meaning of this concept?
Subjective values
The relationship between an individual and himself
The way you’re expected to behave
Behavior that determines interpersonal judgment
No one will know you peaked into the shower while she was in there,
nobody gets hurt, but
The way a person will behave when he doesn’t have to face accountability
Internal values, a different model of value than the ethical - but one that also makes sense and can be an acceptable way of life.
Amoral is one who can not distinguish good from bad
Immoral is one who prioritizes the bad.
What is the purpose of it?
To
How does it exist?
It
Why should it exist?
As
How is it expressed?
Avoidance
How can one be moral?
Morals are decided by the perception of an individual.
An individual who does not live according to their notion of ethics.
For example, you
This is mostly prevalent by how a person chooses to manage his perception of good and bad in the topics that are yet to be established by law.
Example:
You won’t share information cause it belongs to you and private, but that information can change someone’s life for the better (withholding it doesn’t make it worse)
Or perhaps you cheat on your partner, the law does not intervene, but this is clearly not okay, a breach of trust, immoral….
Good and bad act as a compass of decision making for every action that is taken.
Good people can do bad things, bad people can do good things.
To solve a problem that revolves around what’s good, change the variables to their extreme values, once in each direction, if the answer is different, there’s a fine line which changes the situation and is to be analyzed.
Lower the values to notice when the moral ground becomes vague, think about the reasons that change in judgment occurred when it occurred.
You definitely can have too much of something considered good,
Not enough courage/bravery will make you a coward unable to help when you can stop a harmful situation, on the other hand, too much of it and you may put yourself in harm's way which you can’t handle, adding to the negative outcome of the situation, and this essentially applies on all moral acts, such as honesty (the sweet spot between lying and brutal honesty) and generosity (not helping out at all vs sponsoring drug addicts)
Different types of morality
-
Subjective bad
-
Objective bad
An
​
​
The psychology of morality (kohlberg’s , just one of many versions)
-
Preconventional morality
A child’s moral decisions are shaped by the expectations of adults and consequences for breaking the rules, learned by obedience and punishment
then they understand the existence of point of view, and that people operate based on their own needs -
Conventional morality
Understanding the logic behind the rules, hoping to live up to social expectations, genuinely care for the well-fare of the people around them and society as a whole -
Postconventional morality
Understanding the legitimacy of in other’s point of view
Prioritize the objective notion of good over a false law