Just what the FUCK is the good supposed to be, anyways?

Just what the FUCK is the good supposed to be, anyways?

to help, though, to help someone without the God's permission would be bad for you

I think Good as concept used to include the concepts of right, healthy etc. in the older days.
As a concept it has kinda been reorganized into multiples as time went on.

Good is a state of mind, therefore, make good is a bring some mind in the state of good.

Zoroastrian propaganda

Good and evil do not exist. Only self-interest and altruism.

In a world of animals - yes, but humans have capability to such abstraction as good and evil.

"Good" is propaganda for "things that benefit me" and "evil" is propaganda for "things that diminish my status"

Occasionally human beings act irrationality, but 90%+ of the time they justify their position/principles/actions according to this simple set of labels.

"Truth" is propaganda for "things that benefit me" and "False" is propaganda for "things that diminish my status"

Occasionally human beings act irrationality, but 90%+ of the time they justify their position/principles/actions according to this simple set of labels.

Stop mixin up philosofy and culturology.

have you actually read the dialogues? All of these same points are made and argued against

You are such an immature pseudo intellectual.

Good can easily be defined broadly as doing things for the benefit of others so that they may suffer less. You can get into gray areas with that but generally speaking that is what "good" is. For the good would mean for the good of society or humanity. It doesn't mean making others suffer necessarily but that's where a the grey areas come into play. Ideally, for the good would be done without causing suffering to others.

Evil is easier to define. Quite literally it is actions done with intent that results in knowingly harming another.

You're retarded.

>Good can easily be defined broadly as doing things for the benefit of others so that they may suffer less.
Altruism.

>Quite literally it is actions done with intent that results in knowingly harming another.
Selfishness.

It's like you're not even reading my posts, which is more indicative of "pseudo intellectualism" than what I've provided.

>"Truth" is propaganda for "things that benefit me"
I rape my wife. Later on, I have the opportunity to reveal my secret (the truth). Doing so would diminish my social and material status.

Is it "good"?

Now for a more complex situation.

A community operates on a lie that makes them much more altruistic and "good." I have the opportunity of telling them that their assumption is a lie. Is that "good," even though it's "the truth"? No.

>I rape my wife
dude you get a lobotomy beforehand?

>what is hypothetical future tense
ok

You could easily do something selfish not only without harming another, but even with benefiting to another .

You never mentioned altruism or selfishness or gave an explanation that directly hints to either. You made a sweeping statement that means nothing and lacks any coherent direction.

Also, obviously there is overlap with "good" and "evil" with other basic human descriptions of self; you haven't proven anything wrong except to say altruism and selfishness can apply to good and evil.

Fucking stupid piece of shit.

>You could easily do something selfish not only without harming another,
Give me examples please

>You never mentioned altruism or selfishness
Fuck off illiterate :

Charity in exchange for the reputation of a good man. Creation of a cure for cancer for the sake of glory of a great scientist. etc/

are you baiting me or what?

None of those examples are selfish.

I'm not following all your shitposting.

But altruism and selfishness by the definition provided of good and evil would inherently be a part of both good and evil as concepts. The problem is that you just deny good and evil are actual concepts despite it quite literally being concepts that altruism and selfishness apply.

The only way how can you do it by saying that it's not truth.

nice shitposting.

>But altruism and selfishness by the definition provided of good and evil would inherently be a part of both good and evil as concepts. The problem is that you just deny good and evil are actual concepts despite it quite literally being concepts that altruism and selfishness apply.

Good and evil are propaganda terms blanketing the more basic forms of altruism/selfishness. The only justification for blanket terms are archaic religious constructs predicated on a Zoroastrian model, which themselves exploit ingroup-outgroup mentality.

Selfishness requires taking away from others to feed one's ego. It's not my fault you have shitty examples. Giving X to Y person to feed one's ego is does not take anything away from Y. It's an entirely separate inflation of one's ego, not related to selfishness at all. Look up the definition of selfishness if you're still confused.

They're not religious constructs though. Morality isn't a religious concept, compassion isn't a religious concept, the word good and how it applied in all its translations in all the societies throughout history isn't a social construct. Many societies have used it in a social sense absent from religion.

>Morality isn't a religious concept
Yes it is. Logic and ethics are the equivalent scientific concepts.

>ethics
>moral philosophy
>ethics is scientific

Yeah you're done here. You can't just claim things are scientific or religious from your ass.

Never saw this interpretation of the term "Selfishness" in literature, and no one with whom I spoke used it before. Are you one of those who speak on their own private language?

No discussion of Plato's Idea of The Good at all

Just some fucking 16 year old who just discovered nihilism rambling like a retard, bravo Veeky Forums

>being selfish means winning a zero sum game

The good is the aesthetic, that is, the pursuit of beauty and sublimity in all areas of life constitutes the good life. Cuteboys, sonatas, poetry, artistic authenticity etc. have the highest good flow though them. Nietzsche and to a lesser extent Goethe found the morality of "the cross" vulgar, it was an aesthetic judgement, and all morality is simply a decision on whether something is morally "repugnant", or "sick", "vile", un-aesthetic or ugly. Take Milton's satan as the apotheosis of this, he becomes less-beautiful as the poem progresses as his wickedness deepens, until he is literally reduced to a reptile. Keats also groped towards this idea.

What is the good? The objects of appreciation? Or the appreciation of the aesthetic? Because the former would mean the good would differ from person to person while the later would imply there's a principle that gives origin to the appreciation of the aesthetic and in that case, woulndt the principle rather than the action be the good?