Where do we get the concept of "good/bad" from?

[wildflowers1996]

I don't know how to put this into words but

basically utilitarianism would say the best thing to do is the thing which maximises the most happiness/ minimises the most suffering

but in that case - a gang rape, for example, could be justified (assuming no one else ever found out about it, so no other factors to consider) if the enjoyment of the rapists' outweighed the suffering of the person who was raped.

I find that very hard to accept. So - what is it that makes something "good" or "bad" rather than just "creates the most happiness/ minimises the most suffering"?

Why do we feel as though there is a difference between those two things?

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

Seems like it's mostly just vibes alone.

 

[derpyderpins]

Great topic. There is a lot to dig into, here.

"Happiness" is a vague, hard-to-define concept. It can refer to a fleeting feeling, or to a stable sense of contentedness with life. As I've discussed with others on here, there are also issues with self-evaluation of what makes someone better off. So, when we go to define "good," we have to take into account that "happiness" has a very loose meaning.

You seem to acknowledge the issue of actions not being ceterus parabus in a vacuum, but that is an important consideration as well. Beyond what you are saying about the closed example of the victim and the perpetrators, what about:

• The lasting effects this trauma will have on others connected to the woman. Her friends, family, and future will all be affected, as well as anyone else she comes into contact with.
• The effect of getting away with such a crime will have on the perpetrators, who will be more emboldened to commit further harm unto others.

Plus, there is an obstacle that even if we allow for a hypothetical where no one finds out, we are trying to define "good" on a societal scale. If our definition of good allows for such things so long as they occur in the dark, behaviors will change. People will be more frightened, less trusting, and less cautious. A lessening to happiness.

In this way, when we come around to define "good," we have to consider all of those factors which affect happiness. A community full of trust, love, and support will yield the greatest happiness on average, so we define good to further those interests.

As opposed to happiness, hurt is much more clear and easy to define. We can have a discussion about whether the crime is actually good for the perpetrator's happiness (think guilt, mental stability, loss of connection to fellow humans through such dehumanization of the victim), but there's really no argument that the victim has been harmed. This gives us a clear rule that breaks your hypothetical, "harming others is bad." Now, yes, sometimes actions may harm others in indirect ways, eg. if I get a promotion someone else has been denied that promotion, but that is a separate and more nuanced discussion. In general, if you take an action that primarily involves harming someone else, it's bad.

In sum, we get the concepts of good and bad from measuring net changes in "happiness" to the system, acknowledging that effects on individuals can be far-reaching beyond that one person, and further acknowledging that the standards we set will affect behavior and outcomes based on fear of certain consequences. To minimize the effect of rippling effects from someone being hurt, we prioritize stopping "bad" from one person directed at another. Because "Happiness" is so vague, we don't reign it in as much, allowing people to have their own subjective views, although there are certain large principles that get near-unanimous support.

 

[wildflowers1996]

Great topic. There is a lot to dig into, here.

"Happiness" is a vague, hard-to-define concept. It can refer to a fleeting feeling, or to a stable sense of contentedness with life. As I've discussed with others on here, there are also issues with self-evaluation of what makes someone better off. So, when we go to define "good," we have to take into account that "happiness" has a very loose meaning.

You seem to acknowledge the issue of actions not being ceterus parabus in a vacuum, but that is an important consideration as well. Beyond what you are saying about the closed example of the victim and the perpetrators, what about:

• The lasting effects this trauma will have on others connected to the woman. Her friends, family, and future will all be affected, as well as anyone else she comes into contact with.
• The effect of getting away with such a crime will have on the perpetrators, who will be more emboldened to commit further harm unto others.

Plus, there is an obstacle that even if we allow for a hypothetical where no one finds out, we are trying to define "good" on a societal scale. If our definition of good allows for such things so long as they occur in the dark, behaviors will change. People will be more frightened, less trusting, and less cautious. A lessening to happiness.

In this way, when we come around to define "good," we have to consider all of those factors which affect happiness. A community full of trust, love, and support will yield the greatest happiness on average, so we define good to further those interests.

As opposed to happiness, hurt is much more clear and easy to define. We can have a discussion about whether the crime is actually good for the perpetrator's happiness (think guilt, mental stability, loss of connection to fellow humans through such dehumanization of the victim), but there's really no argument that the victim has been harmed. This gives us a clear rule that breaks your hypothetical, "harming others is bad." Now, yes, sometimes actions may harm others in indirect ways, eg. if I get a promotion someone else has been denied that promotion, but that is a separate and more nuanced discussion. In general, if you take an action that primarily involves harming someone else, it's bad.

In sum, we get the concepts of good and bad from measuring net changes in "happiness" to the system, acknowledging that effects on individuals can be far-reaching beyond that one person, and further acknowledging that the standards we set will affect behavior and outcomes based on fear of certain consequences. To minimize the effect of rippling effects from someone being hurt, we prioritize stopping "bad" from one person directed at another. Because "Happiness" is so vague, we don't reign it in as much, allowing people to have their own subjective views, although there are certain large principles that get near-unanimous support.

I appreciate that there are a lot of factors to be taken into account, but say we did not need to consider any of those factors? If overall "happiness" was REALLY maximised the most by the rape having happened - would it justify the rape? I still want to say "no". There's something here saying "the person does not deserve to be raped for the satisfaction of others"

 

[escape_from_hell]

Completely subjective and the universe seems to give no shits what prevails or not. Each perspective has its own idea about good and bad which is entirely selfish.

 

[wildflowers1996]

Completely subjective and the universe seems to give no shits what prevails or not. Each perspective has its own idea about good and bad which is entirely selfish.

I think there are some things that most people agree on though - e.g. torturing babies for personal satisfaction, I think most people would say is "wrong"
for example why do we consider something to be "evil" rather than just "bad for me/others"?

 

[derpyderpins]

I appreciate that there are a lot of factors to be taken into account, but say we did not need to consider any of those factors? If overall "happiness" was REALLY maximised the most by the rape having happened - would it justify the rape? I still want to say "no". There's something here saying "the person does not deserve to be raped for the satisfaction of others"

Jk sorry couldn't help myself.

So you want a completely closed system. We are spawning 5 humans into existence, the awful act occurs where 4 of them benefit and 1 suffers. Then, after the act occurs, we despawn them so there are no outside factors to consider. You want arguments as to why that act was still not justified. I'll try to rattle off some:

• Pain outweighs pleasure.
• Even if pain does not always outweigh pleasure, in this instance the pain is of a greater magnitude than 4x the pleasure.
• emotional considerations can outweigh physical considerations.

The thing is, in your hypothetical we're no longer in the same world. You are asking "Where do we get the concept of 'good/bad' from?", but then taking us out of the system wherein we developed the concept of good/bad.

 

[_AllCatsAreGrey_]

Great question. I resonate with Spinoza's take on this. What is good/bad is determined by one's standpoint. What increases our capacity to affect and be affected is good. What reduces that is bad. What is bad to one could be good to another.

I think there are some things that most people agree on though - e.g. torturing babies for personal satisfaction, I think most people would say is "wrong"
for example why do we consider something to be "evil" rather than just "bad for me/others"?

I think a lot of what we consider to be good/bad overlaps because our fields of existence are intertwined. I feel like ideas of absolute good/evil are residual from cultural development and are pseudo religious in nature.

I highly recommend Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil" as a good read on this.

 

[escape_from_hell]

I think there are some things that most people agree on though - e.g. torturing babies for personal satisfaction, I think most people would say is "wrong"
for example why do we consider something to be "evil" rather than just "bad for me/others"?

The unfortunate reality is that general consensus of a bunch of grunting hysterical animals (humans) means something only to those critters. The laws of physics allow such evil. The laws of physics are the laws. Our opinions are just transient judgements floating around in a brain designed to keep us going until we spit out more kids to join this hell as well. It's why 'might makes right' was a popular 'I'm a tough alfa hear me roar' philosophy for a long time, because it's the de facto unfortunate way things are. If you're powerful you get more influence over the way you want to force things around you to be, but it's still work and it's still a dice role to be gifted powers in the first place.

There is no floating universe god karma goodness that will condemn those committing what are commonly considered heinous acts. By looking at the world, all accounts might even suggest they are highly rewarded.

There likely exist sadistic psychopaths that find torturing babies to be an exquisite joy. But, many animals would also maul the baby to death relentlessly. Some may apply all these made up standards that the mauling from a wild animal was an acceptable aspect of nature, a too bad, whereas the sadistic psychopath (also a shitty genetic-driven animal) has higher moral reprehensibility. Hell, if a dog mauls a kid to death there is a not insignificant number of people who will be quick to say the kid triggered the dog by doing something wrong and the dog detected its bad soul.

It's just one more reason to CTB for me. We all have a subjective experience we are forced into. Some of us are tortured with the ridiculous thing called empathy which presumably helped some humans survive in groups in the past but is a horrendous disadvantage in almost all modern societal structures whereas no empathy or "dark empathy" which some humans have enabling deep savoring of sadism and so on confers a massive advantage.

It is the unfortunate state. Well, I think it's unfortunate. A blessed rich powerful sadistic psychopath is having a ball though and pretty much in a state of cosmic orgasm at the sheer scale of suffering they can enjoy that is taking place relentlessly.

"...for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so..." - Shakespeare's Hamlet

"
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.
"
- Stephen Crane

 

[Alexei_Kirillov]

Seems like it's mostly just vibes alone.

There's actually a branch of ethics that essentially purports that very thing, it's called emotivism.

 

[wildflowers1996]

I guess what I'm trying to say is -
how come we feel a difference between "good" and "bad" and "pleasing" and "displeasing"?
if good/bad don't exist outside of human perception - where does the idea of them come from? how come we have a concept of "ethics" at all?

 

[Downdraft]

They're very simple concepts. It's like trying to explain number one, where do you begin?

In general, good is conceived as something that must happen over something else. It's related to well-being, and experiences one finds desirable.

There are many things that depend on human perception, but that doesn't make them unreal. The colors have physical manifestations. So does math in nature. They can basically be defines as specific reactions within bodies, physical and measurable to certain extent. For example, a combination of dopamine and the right receptors can be considered good.

There are some factors as their potential for suffering responses, how the assigned value to pleasure affects the person, and more, but their effects are a good base. Some degree of suffering has always been considered negative almost universally. Their value is inherent and kind of self-explanatory, so are numbers, or colors.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

But in that case - a gang rape, for example, could be justified (assuming no one else ever found out about it, so no other factors to consider) if the enjoyment of the rapists' outweighed the suffering of the person who was raped.

You might be maximizing the happiness of the rapist but you would also be maximizing the suffering of the victim, so I don't think that this example works very well. Even if the happiness of the rapist outweighs the suffering of the person being raped, their suffering is still being maximized so it would be considered bad. Whether one outweighs the other, thus making it good, would have to depend a lot on context. What is at stake? What is the reasoning behind this action? If it will cause suffering, then how much? And so forth.

Concepts of good or bad would have existed for a long time within our species and those concepts can also be seen in other organisms. Pain typically is considered to be bad, for example. This would likely be more complex in social animals, like us. Since we live together in complex social structures and rely heavily on each other for survival, that means that we require a more complex understanding of good and bad. Social animals generally have more complex cognitive abilities and larger brains due to our complex social environment requiring us to navigate through the many challenges that come from interacting with others. Over time, the idea of morals likely would have started to form within our species as we started to engage in more collaborative efforts with one another. This understanding of morals would also end up becoming even more complex with the birth of cultural norms.

Spoiler

The Origins of Human Morality

How we learned to put our fate in one another’s hands

www.scientificamerican.com

Aspects of good and bad might be determined by what helps our species vs what harms us. Other aspects evolve from cultural norms and what a culture might consider to be good or bad can depend on many factors, which is likely where discrepancies in what people perceive as good or bad come from. What helped people in those regions survive? How might certain opinions and views of those in positions of power impact what the rest of us consider to be good and bad? Our own personal experiences also impact our morals.

Along with that, another huge factor in our concept of what is good or bad is social conformity. We generally find ourselves wanting to conform, whether it be to be accepted by others (normative conformity) or because, when making a decision or judgement, we rely on the idea of other having information that we don't (informational conformity). As more people come to accept or disapprove of something, our concept of good and bad may change too as we work to conform with the group. As a result, social conformity also plays a major role in what we view as good or bad.

Something interesting to note is that moral judgements come from emotion-based intuitions, with the reasoning behind them coming afterwards. These intuitions come from our experiences. This is why moral dumbfounded is a thing. This is important to note because it highlights the importance of actually taking the time to think about and question our own morals. Good and bad, right from wrong, a lot of it doesn't stem use thinking them through carefully and, as a result, we can somethings come to very harmful conclusions when engaging in moral judgment. This is can be seen when discussing things, like sex-work and trans-rights, for example.



Anyway, this entire post was kind of just complete nonsense, tbh. I honestly have no clue as to where I was while writing it and I don't even thing I answered the question now that I'm looking through it again... Oh well

 

[QueerMelancholy]

In my shitty opinion the motivations behind labeling something as good or bad or the motivations that lead someone to do something good or bad matter more than the words being used to label these positive and negative outcomes.

Nature itself is amoral and uninterested in the rightness or wrongness of anything so the idea and usage of good and bad are human-centric. We should focus more on prevention versus punishment after the fact and do away with this idea of entitlement that good deeds deserve good rewards.

Concerning maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering you can minimize suffering all you want and people still might never be happy just less miserable. The pursuit of happiness is supposably an unalienable right. I just don't know if I think the absence of bad things happening means good things will happen or that the absence of good things happening means only bad things will happen.

Happiness alone is such a subjective thing. It would make more sense to me to encourage the ability for people to thrive while diminishing the burden of their suffering.

Like I said this is all just my shitty opinion. Take it as if it was a grain of sand.

 

[DefinitelyReady]

I initially rolled my eyes at this question tbh, but came across it again, and it clicked that it might be more philosophical (perhaps wrong word) than I originally thought. I've wondered this before when I've gone down a rabbit hole. Like, what makes murder wrong, and so amoral, ultimately? Of course I think it's wrong and would never engage in it, but when/how did we decide that it was "wrong"? Is that one just inherent and that's main difference between us and animals? Where were these moralities born? or did they just evolve over time and become the best way to co-exist and extend the homo sapien existence? Moral or quantum relativism, or subjective. All very interesting. That line of thinking touches down to everything we do, think, and feel; so if anything it's just a bitch to figure out, and a beast in its own right. Life.. Tuff.

 

[DarkRange55]

I guess what I'm trying to say is -
how come we feel a difference between "good" and "bad" and "pleasing" and "displeasing"?
if good/bad don't exist outside of human perception - where does the idea of them come from? how come we have a concept of "ethics" at all?

I am half sleep and probably going to mess some stuff up so I will have to clarify and edit this later. Most of this will be repetition for some of you but here is a half-baked attempt!

I think evil does not come from god or from mankind or from the devil. Evil is simply part of the fabric of the universe. Something engrained in nature itself. A force for destruction and creation. A force identified with the suffering that all living things endure. The lion kills the gazelle. It orphans the gazelle's children to feed its own. One ant colony goes to war with another and the winning ants secure a larger territory. A group of chimps gangs up a single chimp who is not part of their group and beats him brutally to death. And in the process they weaken their competitors for land and mates. Just because human beings have reached a higher level of consciousness than the beasts who kill each other for territory, for mating rights or for food, doesn't mean we have outgrown these evils. If anything the advent of our technology, the fruits of our mental prowess have made us the most evil and ruthless creatures yet. It is as Shakespeare said, "the fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves." In the directives implanted in our brain by the survival mechanisms instilled in us through billions of years of evolution. Evil had existed for as long as there has been life and competition. We've just been the first species to recognize it for what it is. And lament its horrors.

Personally I think it's more useful generally to think in terms ecologies or gradients rather than dichotomies. Dichotomies are generally too simple for the complexities of our universe (even just one universe). Gradients is often a good description when several things have simple interactions. Ecologies is generally a good term when lots of things have complex interactions.
But anyways like harmony and disharmony or something. Let good and evil take a backseat once in a while, but thats just me. I would guess it's basically a matter of psychology inherent in the structure of the sapient mind in general whether that's our minds or god's, if he exists. Like the concept of right and left or empty and full or whatever.

Mortality basically started back in cave man days. The Neolithic man, that if you helped out somebody they would probably help you. Thats where it starts. Its reciprocity it may or may not be in effect as far as helping somebody out today. But in that if you're nice to somebody, somebody will be nice to you. Stealing is a pretty mean thing to do. It would suck if someone stole from you. A natural golden rule. Honestly I think its an instinctual thing because you can be indoctrinated to believe anything but some certain things everybody finds appalling.

It helps keep a society together to do these kind of things. Which is why I think that this morality appears to be ingrained in most people, it is an evolutionary construct. And helps maintain society.
Basically it would illogical to act in any way that hurts others or makes other miserable because if we all acted that way it would adversely make my life worse as well. And in the same way its logical to act in a way that helps others because if we all acted in that way it would make all our lives better. Thats basically the bare bones of it. The idea of using logic to effect your morality. But thats like the first few words to the start of a library of volumes. But that simple logic leads to the philosophy that evokes emotions such as compassion, empathy and many others that would all work together to create the rules for society to thrive.

Power is the ability to make things happen, whether for good or for evil or for neither (a volcano has lots of power but it is neither good nor evil). Good or evil depend upon a perspective. Humans consider antibiotics to be good, but many bacteria would disagree.

Personal archetypes like something within side you that you felt like you had been communicated with but it felt like it was apart of you - Satan is also one of those archetypes, too. In my view, Satan is absolutely an archetype that we all have within us. We all have the capacity for in a relationship to- evil!
There are ubiquitous sapient fascinations. I'm sure Jungian archetypes map on but the fascinations I'm thinking of are sex, love, power, uncertainty etc.
EVERYTHING seen/unseen that is "recognized" consciously has subconscious associations- layers of stories about our prior experiences of the object or phenomena.

Currently humanity is the only known barometer in the universe. We don't have any other outside references (aliens) — yet.

Its complicated and I don't mean in the sense that there's underlying principles that govern the way things work and you just don't know the underlying principles. I mean the situation is at least that bad but it may be worse than that. There may not be any underlying principles. In fact thats the way I think it is. There's probably none at all, there's just an ocean of tiny details. The overall outcome being nothing more than the sum of all their individual actions. Thats the way the weather works. Thats why your weather man can't tell you what its gonna do a week from now with any accuracy. It's not that he's missing a knowledge of some underlying principles that would allow them to make those predictions. Its that there are no underlying principles that would allow them to make those predictions. What he's able to predict is dependent entirely on the number and distribution of the observations he's able to make and the computational power he has available to him to model the system. Thats the best he can do. Pretty sure the worldwide social situation is even worse. Its nowhere being nearly even possible to even model the behavior of a single individual. Let alone the behavior of millions of people. There are times when most people do agree on what aught to be done but barring the supposition of some immediate concern that would apparently demand such a drastic measure as that. The impact of randomness cant be overstated!


Simple answer: probably empathy (blurring the line between yourself and other)

Empathy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

Having 95% of your skin burned off in a fire, the pain , and having to live with the pain and disfigurement is bad.

Being tortured in a basement for months physically and mentally and kept prisoner is bad .

These are examples of extreme pain and extreme suffering. To me extreme pain extreme suffering are objectively bad. pain and suffering are also bad.

nothing is worth the worst pain or suffering or torture . eating some dumb food as i was challenged on this forum is not worth the above examples and imo isn't worth shit. nothing is worth anything . nothing matters. nothing matters except avoiding extreme pain and extreme suffering extreme torture.

who is going to say the above examples are not bad to them or not objetively bad. who will trade eathing food for having 95% of your skin burned off ? no one . i wouldn't . i don't need the stupid pleasure of food or anything nor anyhting. i have to eat cause of the pain of hunger. but there is no way i would volutantarily trade someything for extreme torture. i do need to avoid suffering and pain.

The crap they tell is so good , enjoyable , pleasurable , are imo subjective and addictions but imo they are also bad because the pleasurable addictions garbage is what keeps you here to fall for the worst suffering. Also you can't separate the pleasureable things from the worst pain . they are both part of the same evil.

Extreme pain is the most intense affect and so the defining factor of life. life is bad life is evil