What Does 'Good' Truly Mean? Exploring Philosophy and Morality
You probably tend to use the word ‘’good’’ fairly casually in your day to day; but what does ‘’good’’ really mean, fundamentally? Is it just one’s opinion? Or is it something more? One may say that ‘’good’’ is a fundamentally a subjective concept and as such does not possess one universally accepted definition nor meaning which may indeed be true. However, despite this many continue to explore and attempt to definite ‘’good’’ which leads to numerous theories, concepts, and endless questions.
1.Instrumental vs Intrinsic
Is ‘’good’’ a means to an end? Is something only ‘’good’’ because it helps one achieve something else? For example, money may be good for buying things, a vehicle may be good for transport, and exercise may be good for health. Or is ‘’good’’ an end in itself? May something be ‘’good ‘’ for its own sake, regardless of what it leads to? For example, happiness, love, justice, knowledge and virtue. Ask yourself; What is it that I truly value? The pursuit of intrinsic good has been a central question in philosophy. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle proposed that the ultimate intrinsic good is eudaimonia, a concept often translated as “flourishing’’ or “the good life’’. He argued that we pursue happiness, love, and knowledge not for some further end, but because they are part of a life that is ultimately good in itself. Asking yourself what you truly value is, in a way, asking what your own personal eudaimonia might be.
2.Objective vs Subjective
Why does the idea of what is deemed as ‘’good’’ vary between people and cultures? May ‘’good’’ be objective? If it were wouldn’t this imply a universal standard by which all could be judged? Indeed, if the perception and definition of ‘’good’’ were to be objective and universal, they must dismiss major important factors such as culture and religion as these cannot be applied universally. So, is ‘’good’’ subjective? Does it depend on individual preference or cultural norms? If it were subjective, then who are we to judge one’s moral choices or cultural practices? Such subjective label is inclusive of all however, restricts any and all moral criticism, ultimately allowing for all acts, including those majorly agreed to be wrong or bad to be deemed as ‘’good’’.
3.More vs Less
Is there a spectrum of good? Is an action more ‘’good’’ if it results in a greater impact? A classic thought experiment that brings this dilemma into sharp focus is the trolley problem. Imagine a runaway trolley is about to hit five people tied to a track. You are standing next to a lever. If you pull it, the trolley will switch to a different track, where only one person is tied up. Do you pull the lever? This scenario forces us to confront the very conflict between saving the greater number and violating a fundamental moral rule. The approach, known as consequentialism, suggests that the morality of an act is determined solely by its outcomes. A popular form of this is utilitarianism, which aims to produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Under such framework, one might indeed choose to sacrifice a single innocent person to save many in order to do more ‘’good’’. But would this be moral? This is where deontology comes in. This ethical framework, championed by the philosopher Immanuel Kant, argues that an action’s morality is based on whether it adheres to a set of duties or rules, regardless of the consequences. A deontological approach would protect individual rights, arguing that certain acts, such as killing an innocent person, are inherently wrong no matter the outcome. What do you think? Would one be more ‘’good’’ if they were to help a group of people opposed to a single person? Wouldn’t such approach dismiss and violate individual human rights? On the other hand, if ‘’good’’ were determined not by outcome nor consequence but rather moral duties? What is deemed as more ‘’good’’ would no longer depend on greater impact but rather the morality of the ‘’good’’ act, protecting individual rights. However, were morality and ‘’good’’ may be in conflict with one another such approach may fall short; Is it always wrong to lie, even to save a life? Would such ‘’good’’ be less?
4.The Good Person
Is being “good’’ less about what you do and more about who you are? Another major ethical framework, known as virtue ethics, shifts the focus from judging actions to judging the character of the moral agent. This approach suggests that “good’’ is not defined by the consequences of an act nor adherence to rules, but rather by the development of virtuous habits and a good character. The central idea is that a person who is truly courageous, compassionate, and just will naturally perform good acts. This perspective asks us to consider what kind of person we want to be, rather than just what action we should take. However, this approach also raises questions: How do we agree on what virtues are most important? Can a “good’’ person still perform a bad action?
Final Thoughts
Ultimately, there are no straightforward answers. However, confronting these questions reveals that the concept of “good’’ is not a single, simple idea but rather a complex interplay of different perspectives. It requires us to consider the consequences of our actions, the duties and rules that guide us, and the character we are trying to cultivate. Exploring these frameworks is an essential part of the journey towards a more thoughtful, ethical, and just world, allowing us to better understand the decisions we make and the values we hold.
0 comments