[peirce-l] the quality of good

[Jim Piat]

Dear Folks,   I've long been sceptical about the notion of good and evil.  So as an exercise of self discipline I thought I'd give a go at trying to develop a general idea of the notion of good and ask for others to share some of their views as well.   Seem to me that good is an evaluation we make about the consequences or meanings of events.   That in general we judge good event to be those who outcome is generally agreed upon as increasing the satisfaction and well being of folks.  But how is the process of generally agreeing achived (in other words what specifically do I mean by general agreement) and what is meant by the notions of satisfactiona nd well being of folks.  Beging with the latter I'd say that the satisfaction and well being of folks refers to those outcomes or consequences folks would choose for themselves.       The issue of general agreement is more difficult.  The problem with moral choices is not deciding between good and bad or better and worse but choosing between who is to get the better and whom the worse.  The simple choice between good and bad is not by itself a moral choice.  A moral choice involves a choice in which what is good for one person or group is achieved at the expense of what is good for another.  A choice between six of one and a half a dozen of the other in which no one gains or loses at the expense of another is not a a choice involing a moral decision. Good is inextricably tied to the notion of moral choices.  In general we consider an outcome good to the extent it is the outcome folks would choose for themselves.  The distinction between  a good and a moral outcome is that the quality of being good refers to that which one would choose for hirself where as the the moral choice is the one which one would select if he or she did not know which outcome --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com