Wynn Blog Entry #2: Good and Bad, relative?

The relativity of "Good" and "Bad"

Good and bad are often considered as universal ideas, that there is a universal good and a universal bad. For instance, we know that killing is bad because we see and hear about news of killers being the target of society's scorn. We know that helping others is viewed as good as it is beneficial to both parties. This is further referenced in the typical stories of good versus evil where the hero seeks to rid the world of evil. To the hero, and those that the hero helps, their plight is considered “good” in the sense that it is beneficial to them. However stop and think about the position of the bad guy who believes the hero’s antics to be “bad”, due to their goal being unbeneficial to him, and the continuation of his scheme to be “good”. Now the concepts of good and bad have swapped places with the bad guy thinking the heroes’ acts are bad while his own machinations are good.

What is described as good and bad changes on the situation and there is often no action that is universally good or bad.

In this blog post I want people to think about how the concepts of good and bad can be defined, as well as contemplate the nature of these ideas.

Definitions

Good:

Google Definitions:

adjective

1.

to be desired or approved of.

"it's good that he's back to his old self"

noun

1.

that which is morally right; righteousness.

"a mysterious balance of good and evil"

           

2.

benefit or advantage to someone or something.

"he convinces his father to use his genius for the good of mankind"

Dictionary.com definition:

Adjective

1.

morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man.

2.

satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree: a good teacher; goodhealth.

3.

of high quality; excellent.

4.

right; proper; fit: It is good that you are here. His credentials are good.

5.

well-behaved: a good child.

noun

42.

profit or advantage; worth; benefit: What good will that do? We shall work for the common good.

43.

excellence or merit; kindness: to do good.

44.

moral righteousness; virtue: to be a power for good.

For the sake of simplicity, this post will take the meaning of bad to be the opposite of the definitions of good.

The first Google definition of good as a noun describes the word as being tied to morals. This is also backed up by Dictionary’s definitions.

The Universality of these Ideas.

Good and bad do not have universal definitions as they are not universal terms. What is meant by this? Something deemed "good" by a first party may be deemed as "bad" by a third party. In order for something to be universal, it needs to be true in every case. It appears, then, that subjectiveness and universality are mutually exclusive concepts.

Consider the situation of a hungry lion hunting a rabbit. What is right and what is wrong in this context?

One outcome has the lion catching the rabbit and fulfilling his desire for a meal. To the lion, this is good as it is filling a basic requirement for living. Although for the rabbit it is undeniably bad since he is now dead.  On the other hand, we have the resolution where the rabbit escapes with his life. This is good for the rabbit, as he lives on, but bad for the hungry lion, who has just spent his energy attempting to catch food and failing.

Without involving any repercussions from these examples, there is no universal good or bad here as what is good for one party is bad for the other.

It is also important to differentiate good and bad against right and wrong. To some sense of the terms, right and wrong can be considered more universal than good and bad since something that is right might have negative repercussions. In other words the “right” thing to do may be bad for someone else. It almost denotes a form of hierarchy in these concepts, with good and bad being lesser, or smaller, than the concepts of right and wrong.

A plane is about to crash into a town and you can stop it by shooting the plane before it hits the ground. What do you do?

Take the grim scenario of an out of control plane holding many passengers falling towards a town. If the plane is allowed to fall into the city then the passengers and staff of the plane will surely perish, along with some of the residents in the town. Assume the only possible way to prevent this is to shoot down the plane. It will save the inhabitants of the town on the ground but will definitely kill the people in the plane.

There are two philosophies people have undertaken about this:

One, you shoot down the plane to prevent as many casualties even though you know you will be causing the death of the people on the plane.

In this case the people on the plane are going to die either way (bad for the passengers and crew) but the townsfolk survive (good for the townsfolk)

Two, you let the plane fall and collapse into the town causing a very large number of casualties.

This time the people on the plane die (bad for them) and the people in the town suffer huge casualties (also bad for them)

These two choices are based off of human opinions of what is right and what is wrong. One who chooses the former option (Person A) would think:

“There are going to be deaths anyway so I’ll try to save as many people as I can.”

While someone who decides on the latter option (Person B) may think:

“I will never commit an act that will kill an innocent person. Shooting down that plane will mean that I killed those people on that plane myself.”

This example is given to show the differing opinions on right and wrong, and to also display a situation where good and bad is relative to your situation. The philosophies of Persons A and B are to show that right and wrong is also relative.

There are people who base their decisions on what is good or bad for their own mentality.

Author:
Clayton de Groot (Wynn)

Wynn Blog Entry #1: Human actions, natural?

"Is what humans do and create considered "Natural"?"

I have often debated to other people about this question. Many people believe humans, as a species, are destroying nature. This is backed by the facts that we are demolishing rain forests and animal's natural habitat, hunting endangered species such as the tiger, and polluting the ecosystem of the Earth via the burning of fossil fuels and disposal of harmful wastes into the ocean. 

All of these facts are 100% correct and I am not one to deny them. Humans do indeed seem to be destroying the nature from whence we came from though, given the chance on a clean, natural world, humans would likely follow a similar path all the time. It is natural for humans to do what we do. This leads me to ask the question above: "Is what humans do and create considered "Natural"?"

 Definitions:

So, what is the definition of natural? When it comes to philosophical topics your individual beliefs and interpretations of the definitions of such weighty words has a significant impact on your view of life. According to a simple Google search of the word "Natural" we are presented with two definitions.

adjective: natural
1.existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.
"carrots contain a natural antiseptic"
2.in accordance with the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.
"sharks have no natural enemies"

The entry for "Nature" on Dictionary.com states the definition as the following:

noun
1.

the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
2.

the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization.
3.

the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals,or rivers.
4.

natural scenery.
5.

the universe, with all its phenomena.

While the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia page "Nature" states:

Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural,physical, or material world or universe. "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.

It appears that there is a disparity between the accepted definitions.


Now, depending on which definition rings truest to you your opinions may differ. It seems there is uncertainty in the actual definition of nature by the consensus of the populace.
Following the definition provided by the Google search of: "existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind" this directly excludes intervention of humans. But surely that means humans must have their own form of nature; some kind of natural-for-humans term to counteract the imbalance proposed by this definition? Well yes, there is such a word; it is "Artificial" and directly describes actions which are the result of human intervention. Although “artificial” is not the term used to describe the natural acts of humans.

This leads me to consider the following question:
"Is it correct to say that artificial things are unnatural?"
The juxtaposition of the natural and artificial is really part of the natural world and has derived from nature itself. Without nature we humans would not have existed to create the artificial. It does not appear to be a Yin and Yang relationship since the natural can exist without the artificial though the artificial cannot exist without the natural whereas Yin and Yang is representative of two halves to one whole.


Personal View:

My answer the question of the above paragraph is No on the basis that the very existence of humans is natural. We came about at the whim of nature just as other animals have done so. Since we derive from nature the things we create should also be considered a part of nature. And what of things that are created by robots? This is also natural, in my personal view, as they are still a subset of nature. In fact, I believe it is incorrect to call artificial creations unnatural.

The definitions of “nature” provided by Dictionary.com mostly exclude humans from the definition, just as the first Google definition has. However I wish to draw your attention to the 5th definition provided:

5.
the universe, with all its phenomena.

Perhaps these definitions merely explain the term in different contexts and are not all universal definitions of the word to be used in every context at once. If they are all universal then this 5th definition is incompatible with the others, which clearly excludes humans actions from them.

Why is there this need to separate human acts from nature as if we are an abomination of nature?

I reckon this stems from the view of humans’ apparent destruction of what was once considered nature, referring to the plants and wildlife, and that what we must be doing is surely unnatural. However unnatural is a word that suggests defiance of nature. Certain views would claim that we are not defying nature but adapting to it, learning it, and using it.

Do I agree or Disagree to the question of the Blog?

In response to the question of this entry, my response is Yes. The acts of human are natural and the term “artificial” is not exactly the Yang to nature’s Ying and does not fill the role as being the opposite of nature.

Please take your time to form your own opinions on this matter. I hope to provide fuel for thought and stimulation for philosophical discussion in these blog posts. Thank you sincerely for taking the time to read this entry!

Author:
Clayton de Groot (Wynn)