Transcendent good

Love

Cherrytree I appreciate your response. Does love exist beyond humans? Beyond other animals? Beyond this planet? Beyond this universe?

Does disembodied love exist?

I'm afraid there are more things in heaven and earth than we can (at present) understand.

I don’t really understand the question.

But as I see it everything has a cause - for example, in nature, light and warmth come from the sun, cold and dark do not have a source but are due to the lack of the sun, or an artificial light/heat source.

With animals, many apparently cruel acts are necessary for the protection and long term survival of the species.

Humans have all of the ‘animal’ instincts but something else as well, we are not bound by our instincts and in most people these are transcended by goodness and kindness a lot of the time. Without ‘goodness’ people can be worse than animals, not because of some source of evil, but because they have given in to selfish, materialistic, physical desires without ameliorating them with any degree of goodness, even though it seems to be innate in us (just watch ‘the secret life of four year olds!).
So yes, I think there must be a transcendant ‘source’ of good out there.

Wow what a philosophical conundrum. Can good exist in isolation? I would say that in order for good to exist there needs to be something/someone to do the good thing whether that be thought, word or deed and something/someone to be the recipient of said thought, word or deed. But that's an off the top of my head answer and I need to give it more thought. Brilliant OP. Really got me thinking.

Thanks, Vampirequeen.
Starbird, I think like you do and humans, in common with other mammals, naturally cooperate in social groups including extended families, work places and so on. All societies have moral codes . The Golden Rule is the basic ethic for cooperation, or as we might say "enlightened altruism".

I welcome objections to any claims I make. (BTW are there any smilies available for forum users?)

There is a concept of "good" - it can be shown by its absence - when we do not do good actions or have good thoughts we feel guilt and/or regret - if there was no concept of good why would we feel so?
Doing good without knowing the recipients can also be self-sacrifice - like the passengers on that plane on 9/11.

I read quite a disturbing article a couple of weeks ago. I think it was based on research which put forward the idea that psychopaths can make a very valuable contribution to society. It was said that because psychopaths have no conscience, they can make life and death decisions very quickly and carry them out effectively.

I think it was based on the idea that if, for instance, there is a shortage of resources to keep a certain number of people alive, psychopaths would be useful in being able to "despatch" the people he or she decided were the least necessary for the group as a whole.

I found the notion that psychopaths are useful rather worrying but it poses a question that I find difficult to answer: is the murder of a person, who is for a number of reasons seen as less valuable, in order to save several or many people ever justified? And is it a sign of the times that this sort of reasoning appears to have become more acceptable and even desirable?

I know it's a bit off topic but it still does relate to the question of what being good is and whether acts that are deemed to be good are merely a social construct which can alter in line with the changing needs and wants of society.

All societies need to have a working consensus about what is good and what is bad. Religions have legitimated whatever moral system is in place. I wonder what has replaced priests in this present age.

dbDB77, I think that traditional morality is still taught by most parents and family members (Israeli kibbutzim were I suppose extensions of parenting)and although the myths are not interpreted literally they still carry meanings. When I asked about the transcendence of good I had in mind a vague orientation towards good whatever one conceives that to be. It's only incarnations of good, e.g. Jesus, that enables us to name what good consists in.

Eloethan, I did not read that and it's very interesting. Based on your description I don't find psychopathy all that disturbing as long as law and order is strong enough to check the activities of psychpaths.

I can imagine that in wartime the psychopathic strategist would be a saviour for a nation on its knees. Times and seasons. In peacetime and when diplomacy has a chance of working psychopaths are a menace.

Are Paradise Papers tax evaders psychopaths? Fascists psychopaths?
Maybe the means to the end is easier to reconcile with one's conscience when the victims are out of sight and hearing.

Eloethan wrote(19 December):

"I found the notion that psychopaths are useful rather worrying but it poses a question that I find difficult to answer: is the murder of a person, who is for a number of reasons seen as less valuable, in order to save several or many people ever justified? And is it a sign of the times that this sort of reasoning appears to have become more acceptable and even desirable?

I know it's a bit off topic but it still does relate to the question of what being good is and whether acts that are deemed to be good are merely a social construct which can alter in line with the changing needs and wants of society."
__________

I revisited this from you as I just read some extracts from George Orwell, and I find that I agree with him.
The points he made I venture to sum up as that it's more evil to demonise and lie about persons than it is to fight them or kill them. A corollary is that when I cannot see my opponent, or when they are at some social distance, or when the weapon is remotely controlled, the evil is worse than when I recognise and honour my opponent as another human being like myself, even while I kill him in an act of war.
I think this is very important today when enemies of common people are not violent killers as much as unseen multinational corporations that control our elected governments.

I have a belief (no material foundations whatsoever) that there's a force for good in the world, and an equally strong force for evil.
The difficult part is to be able to decide which is more active in various situations. And in ourselves.

But is it always evil to kill in war? "Evil triumphs if good men do nothing" - I can't remember who said that but I agree with the sentiment. This reinforces Fennel's point about good v evil - if we don't counter evil it will succeed. But maybe that means we have to take actions that are not intrinsically "good" but I would suggest are extrinsically "good".
Alexa said "...when the weapon is remotely controlled" - the film "Eye in the Sky" is a drama about a drone commander and whether or not it should be used to attack in a particular situation - it captures the mental conflict & stress involved in making such decisions. It's also an excellent film.

There are some cultures where the survival of the group was seen as more important than the death of an individual. Inuits for example valued baby girls much less than boys and considered only a certain number could be supported by a group, so unwanted newborns were left in the open to die. Very old people were sometimes subjected to the same fate. Were such acts "good" or "evil" they certainly enabled the group to survive.

There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.
Shakespeare

I think we can identify some things as universally good, though and some as universally bad. But some for some things it depends on the circumstances. Trisher's Inuit example, for instance.

Can we only recognise ' good' because we know 'evil'?

Do we know evil, without being taught? Is it somewhere inside us, this sense of knowing what is evil and why?

And Trishers example presupposes that death is a bad thing in itself.

Maybe not an intrinsic sense of "evil" Misadventure, but an intrinsic sense of what is needed for survival. In some circumstances survival of the self and in others survival of the group.

Bridgeit wrote:

"Can we only recognise ' good' because we know 'evil'?"

I agree with this . Evil is easy to identify whereas good looks to me very like absence of evil. One of the Christian fathers, I forget which one, said that good is the absence of evil. I must look it up.

Miss Adventure wrote:

"Do we know evil, without being taught? Is it somewhere inside us, this sense of knowing what is evil and why?"

I seem to remember that there were some respectable experiment done with very young children as subjects, experiments which showed that very young children had 'instinctive' ideas of fairness.

So is it 'evil' to leave a baby to die or an old person (some committed suicide it is thought)? It used to be thought a sin to committ suicide.
Eglantine21 I didn't say death was a bad thing- although I accept it is seen as such in our society. The Inuit may view it differently I don't know enough about them, If we do assume death isn't a bad thing do we then view some killing as acceptable?

I wonder though, if a child had no input whatsoever, how developed their sense of right or wrong would be?
Young children playing together - say toddler age - take a lot of telling about sharing, not hitting, not biting. I'm not saying children are inherently evil. Just wondering whether the sense of fairness and justice develops naturally, or is coached by parents so that we can expect reasonable behaviour?

Eglantine21 wrote:

"And Trishers example presupposes that death is a bad thing in itself.

Maybe not an intrinsic sense of "evil" Misadventure, but an intrinsic sense of what is needed for survival. In some circumstances survival of the self and in others survival of the group."

(Trisher's example was about how Inuit expose to lethal cold those individuals surplus to the group's requirements for survival)

Eglantine, are you saying that death is not a bad thing in itself?

If so, I'd not only agree with you I'd go further and say that without transience there could not be life. Without knowing that my death would stop my life I'd not have any purpose to my life.

I don't think death is a bad thing at all Alexa. It is the sense of loss and grief that the living experience that disposes us to think that it is an evil we should avoid.
Death is just a change of state. I don't mean this in the religious/spiritual sense but in the physicists sense of matter cannot be created or destroyed but constantly undergoes change.
Survival of the species is an inherent drive. In answer to Trisher there may be circumstances individually and as a group where the death of one or more members can be seen as 'good" if it achieves that end.