[peirce-l] RE: the quality of good

[Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen]

I regard this kind of discussions very interesting and practical. It are the kind of discussions that motivated me to get into science and reading a lot of intellectual texts. While I was, and even am, one of the most sceptical persons about both science and scientist. Think that mainly has to do with the current huge gap between science and intellectualism.   I got the fortune to meet a great professor who founded a new University in the Netherlands. And some of the teachers there. I even did not know about the existence of this University and this professor when I first asked my promotor for the PhD dissertation I now write to guide me a bit in writing it. Discovering later on that there actually would be a University like I told the promotor (this is Dutch term for the professor guiding a person with a PhD research) some years before that there should be grounded such an institution.   But, to be short, we discussed a lot of great texts and issues with this professor and some other great persons. One of them being “beyond good and evil” from Nietzsche. One of the greatest texts if you can “see” what it is all about. It is probably the greatest general practical text about a general idea of the notion of good and evil and much more issues.   In some other discussion we were discussing about borders. Although the discussion was rather vague, maybe exactly because of that, it made me think a lot about the “anothernesses” relevant to the issue. Which gave me a lot of insight(s). Then later on another great professor joining a meeting was telling about another discussion. Which was about the following:   -          There are a man and a dog on the street. You have to decide which one you will drive dead with your car. It has to be one of them. Which one would you choose.   Then the professor said there was one guy actually thinking a lot and then stating “I would not know”. The professor said it was unbelievable anyone could state that.   I did not respond. But actually would have said the same. That I would not know. In some situations I actually would have no problem at all putting the car at full speed and driving the man dead. While at other I would refuse to drive whatever the consequences might be as long the two subjects in front would stay alive.   We could have this kind of discussions here. I would regard it very interesting. But think they should then better take place on some separate list probably. For discussion about applicability of the Peirce notions. And maybe getting the anothernesses into the discussions also.   Kind regards,   Wilfred ter Van: Jim Piat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: dinsdag 4 juli 2006 7:42 Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum Onderwerp: [peirce-l] the quality of good   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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date: 30-6-2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date: 30-6-2006