What is Good?
There is a valuable question that we
find in the Regis University Tradition statement, "How ought we to live?" (Regis
University, n.d.). This is a primary and ongoing question in the philosophy of
ethics; and for some, a deep consideration for daily living. Just as the
universe does not discern, nor should people. The answer to what is good cannot be defined by a
label of morality as presented by humankind.
If we avoid trying to define good and allow life to flow in its natural
order the result will be a harmonious, universal existence. By examining the various
philosophical theories on ethics, it is easy to conclude, there is neither good
nor bad, only consequences.
Ethics
are Relative
Ethics are the moral duties, norms, and values
that decide how people ought to behave or take care of one another and their
surrounding environments. Within each
community, norms and ethics are determined by several means and are dynamic in
the human experience. In that respect, as each person lives in various
locations with a variety of people, ethics are relative: individuals and
communities choose their values (Adkins, 2012).
Ethnocentrism
Various ethical beliefs and norms
throughout the world, communities, tribes, and individuals creates separation,
disharmony, and, among other things, war. As people believe one system of
ethics as right then judge another as wrong, such as during The Crusades, there
is no synchronization of society. At times, unity for a common theme, such as
‘Occupy Wall Street’, can become a cohesive faction. This was a successful
tactic which led to a nationwide association known as ‘The Occupy Movement.’
However, there are an equal or greater number of people who pushed back against
this campaign. In this example, there was, and is still, no civil
synchronization. We need to look no further than the media and the Internet to
see the discord. There are notable
amounts of virtual blog wars, in the media are regular highlights of the
societal discourse from the debating groups.
The
Butterfly Effect
Like Ray Bradbury’s Butterfly Effect, even one minute change
can make a massive impact for others; and, in other times or places. For every
action there is an opposite and equal reaction. Consequentialists hold that a
moral choice requires one to consider the consequences of an action with intent
of the positive associations they bring about (Stanford, 2007).
The philosopher, Immanuel Kant,
argues against using the reasoning of actions and consequences as it brings
with it too many unknowns. Not all consequences can be known, therefore, some
actions can bring about unintended consequences. Neither of these theories is
without weaknesses nor can they provide a definition of good or bad. One does
not contribute to the greater good without the other.
For Kant, the intent of the action
has the higher moral ground than the action itself. As noted by Stewart,
Blocker and Petrick (2013), Kant notes that there is only one defining
characteristic of moral good, and that is the intention of good will,
regardless of outcome. The obvious weakness in this argument is that if the
intent is a positive action, and a negative outcome occurs, this in fact does
impact others.
We
Plan for the Outcome
At birth everyone is granted free
will to decide on how they ought to live. We, as individuals, communities,
kings, or leaders, come to a decision of what we want and what is good.
Following the norms and values of our societies allows for an organized
civilization and the avoidance of mayhem or, better stated, anarchy. However,
as individuals and communities determine their morals and values, it is not
possible for everyone to agree on the definition of good or bad, as evidenced
by world history.
People have the free the will to
choose to follow societal norms or create their own in pursuit of happiness and
morality. It can be regarded as the greater good for the greatest number of
people, it can be defined by the laws of good and bad as established by sacred
texts, or it can be determined by the underlying intent for good will and a
sense of duty.
Regardless of whether or not an
outcome of an action helps us or helps others, individuals control the action. Yet,
to some, neither the personal motive of an action nor the consequences
determine morality, or happiness. Other views of morality, the teleological
approach, are the concepts that human happiness is the ultimate good. If the
happiness and pleasure is for one individual, it is noted as egoistic hedonism.
If the happiness is for the greater good, then it is considered Utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism is intended to
establish pleasure for the greatest number of people and encourage a
synchronization of community for the greater good (Stewart, Blocker, &
Petrick, 2013). There are challenges with this idealistic view. First of which
is this: how is the greatest number of people decided? Is it a tribe of 10
versus a tribe of 50, or a continent the size of Australia as opposed to
Africa?
Living
Without Judging: True Harmony
In order for us to believe that some
things are right we must first determine, or make a comparison, that some
things are wrong. This guideline is based on a duality, pleasure versus
displeasure and vice versa. This duality of good and bad is based on a belief
system that promotes judgment and dichotomy. As noted by Dr. Dyer (2007, p.
10), “Opposites are simply judgments created by the human mind.” The dichotomy
through labels and judging creates disharmony, envy, and transgression. Hence,
if we avoid trying to define good and allow life to flow in the unity oneness,
the result will promote a harmonious, universal existence, which is, in
essence, the connotation of good. This duality of good and bad which
promotes judgment creates more conflict than solutions. By attempting to define
morality, more questions arise and opposing sides commence.
Conclusion
After examining all of the various theories,
the most sensible conclusion is that good, along with bad, does not exist. There
are merely actions and consequences and the way people perceive them. What can
be accepted as ‘good’ is merely the perception of positive outcomes of each
individual action. As people try to label good and bad, things become black and
white in a world filled with grey. With so many different cultures, religions,
societal norms and individuals in the world, it is impossible to say one is
better than the other; or if any are accurate at all. By accepting the natural
order of the universe, removing labels of good or bad, and removing judgments,
we allow the world to flow naturally. Thus, tolerance and harmony is the key to
happiness.
Cristi Adkins, Essay on Ethics
6/15/12
References
Adkins,
C. (2012). Regis University Philosophy Forum. Retrieved from https://worldclass.regis.edu/section
Consequentialists.
(2007). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved
from http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/podcasts/general_philosophy
Deontology.
(2007). Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/podcasts/general_philosophy
Dyer,
W. (2007). Change your thoughts change
your life: Living the wisdom of the Tao. Hayhouse,
INC: Carlsbad, CA
Regis
University. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://cps.regis.edu/jesuit.php
Stewart,
D., Blocker, H., and Petrick, J. (2013). Fundamentals
of Philosopy.
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education,
Inc.
Posts
