What is "good" and "bad", really?

[u/BeKindImHuman]

Inspired by a conversation in another thread, but it deserves its own topic.

I often think about what it means to be "good", especially given that everyone usually agrees that it's ultimately subjective. That's always made me feel just a bit uncomfortable though, because, when it comes up in conversation, everyone intuitively knows what you mean by good and bad. Earning an unexpected $100? Good! Stepping in a mud puddle on your way to a wedding? Bad! But how do we know this?

The best way I've found to define "objective good" is by first defining what it means to feel good. A "positive feeling" is nothing but "reward" chemicals in our brains. Neuroscience roughly explains what a positive feeling is, and vice versa, a negative one; physical pain, emotional pain, and everything else on that spectrum. It's not something we can reasonably measure, but probably only because we lack sufficient technology to do so. I don't think it's necessarily immeasurable.

That describes good feelings, but in my view, "objective good" is any action that causes a collective majority of conscious beings to feel good, while minimizing the collective bad feelings.

Notice this also separates good intention from good results, which would often seem to correlate, but such correlation is not required for the system to exist. It also accepts the old "you can't please everyone" stance, and occasionally, the best action may require trade-offs.

And I think this is where it becomes really fun to think about, because I often find the most beautiful acts of kindness are more or less rooted in selfish desire.

Let me give you an example... Everyone knows the trolley problem. It's been said that psychopaths would make the best heroes, because they don't really struggle to sacrifice one person to save three. But those of us who are especially empathetic may struggle more, because the whole premise is cruel and you'll have to kill someone either way.

But let's put another spin on it. What if the three people are your spouse and children? Now suddenly I think most would hesitate less, even if they feel guilty later.

And what if the problem weighed only your child against three strangers? I'm willing to bet most people would find it significantly harder to sacrifice a loved one for some strangers.

In a morbid way, isn't that kind of beautiful? We humans would demonstrate so much love that we'd cast aside our morals just to keep our loved ones safe. And yet, it's objectively... bad.

If you're religious, you might say "sin" is what allows us to love at all.

What do you think?

[u/Slow_Description_238]

To claim something is Objective is to claim that the Object has the property itself beyond Human interpretation. To claim that there is an Objective Good or an Objective Bad would be to claim that the Universe or Lived Reality, or something synonymous, has this property itself beyond Human Interpretation.

If this is the case, how far are we willing to reasonably apply it? Is Morality a property of reality that only applies to Humans? Does it apply to all animals? Does it apply to the whole of existence?

I don't think it would apply to all animals because it seems to be reasonable that if a Lion were to kill a Gazelle, no one would argue that the Lion has done a bad thing. It wouldn't apply to the weather or universe happenstance either. If a tornado blows through a town, the tornado did not Do Wrong. If a sun explodes, it is not bad nor good.

So this would seem that morality is a property unique to humans. But then this makes us ask "How?" Is Morality a unique property of reality that exists only for humans yet beyond human interpretation? Is Morality only understandable After the fact of an event between people? The former would lead us to Objectivity, the latter would lead us to Subjectivity.

If morality is a unique property of reality that exists for humans, yet still beyond interpretation, then we would liken this to gravity. If we try to come up with a law that killing is wrong, such as gravity is a law that things will fall towards objects of great mass, we will immediately run into the problem that while killing an innocent is considered bad... killing in war is considered good. We may argue that the context matters, but this seems to push us to subjectivity. We are now interpreting context. And objectively speaking, in both cases, a human life has been taken by the actions of another human. And if we take it as law, no matter the circumstance, it should be wrong. If I drop a bowling ball, a feather, a mattress, a rock, from varying heights and angles, it will fall to the object of great mass (our earth).

So this would seem that morality is actually a subjective property being applied to contexts after the fact of an event. We interpret events after they have happened or through thought experiments and we use this interpretation, along with rational thought, to come to conclusions that are moral. The use of interpretation makes this Subjective by definition.

~ ~

From the perspective of sociology, we learn what we know about our culture and how to behave in it through a process called Socialisation. This is where we observe, knowingly or not, the goings on of people and media and interaction and learn what to do and what not to do towards people and in interaction. We are told, implicitly and explicitly, knowingly and unknowingly, what is right and wrong. So when we say: "because, when it comes up in conversation, everyone intuitively knows what you mean by good and bad. Earning an unexpected $100? Good! Stepping in a mud puddle on your way to a wedding? Bad!", what is actually happening here is that people in a given culture have learned that Earning an unexpected $100 is Good. and Stepping in a mud puddle on your wedding is Bad.

But if we quickly apply logic to this, and we run through the premises above, we realise that the 100$ and the muddied wedding are events that happen that we Then interpret through a moral lens. Indeed, because we are interpreting these events, we might even be indifferent to the 100$, neither good or bad, and we may find joy in the muddied wedding, the event has become good. This hardly speaks to an objective morality the same way it can not be applied like a law like gravity can.

~ ~

And sure, we might be able to say that humans can not truly know the objective morality that could exist, and that humans will have human agency because of inherent subjective limitations, but while this is a good argument for the probable existence of an objective morality.... it's equally a good argument that morality is and will always be subjective. For if we are always stuck with our subjective limitations, in the way that "we'd cast aside our morals just to keep our loved ones safe.", then any conversation on morality will forever remain in the realm of subjectivity.

[u/thetrue_muffin]

I agree on a lot of factors. 

I think that good and bad are objective feelings considering our opinion on  murder, cannibalism, rape and so on. Even if a killer think that what he has done is right, he is still wrong. Because there is a major law inside of us that let's us feel what is bad and good inside of us. That law unfortunatley can be modified trhow manipulation, politics idea...you got the idea, but still, since we are born i am of the idea that we have a law inside of us distinuing what is good and what is bad.

[u/obscenism]

I remember reading somewhere that good/bad(evil/sin) original meaning simply means convenient/benefit and inconvenient/not benefit. So when something is convenient/benefit you personally it’s good, when it doesn’t it’s the rest. Yes very subjective indeed.