What makes 'The Good Life' good?
Plato may have been the first to attempt to define "good"; then G. E. Moore had something of import to say about it. The polymath genius who eventually came up with a precise logical adequate contextual definition of the concept "good" was Dr. Robert S. Hartman. You can read a partial bio about him on Wikipedia. Also there you could find a (somewhat technical) entry touching on Value Science. The article in Wiki doesn't do the topic justice; one needs to read the original writings of Hartman for that. Here I will share with you some material from the opening pages of the first chapter of a booklet I co-authored several years ago. I'll be glad to take any questions on this after you look it over, if you care to consider doing so, or to ask about anything afterwards.
BIW,The booklet is entitled LIVING THE GOOD LIFE. Here is a link to it: - http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/Living_The_Good_Lifef.pdf
What makes the Good Life good?
Let’s offer some basics. We’ll inquire as to what makes anything good –
for example, a hammer or a telephone call? Then we’ll be in a position
to understand what makes a good life good. We’ll take up four profound
questions here in this chapter: What’s valuable? What does “good”
mean? What’s better? And finally: Are there types of value, some
better than others? All of this will give us a clear understanding of why a life
(or anything else for that matter) has been described as "good."
After that we will be ready to consider the question: Who
is the good life good for? You see, we’d like to take some of the
vagueness and confusion out of these important matters in order to gain
clarity regarding our topic – which is Living the Good Life. So let’s turn
first to the important question, What does the word “value” mean?
Have you ever wondered What’s valuable? Or What do people mean
when they use that term? It wouldn’t hurt to define what we’re talking
about. It might even be helpful. When we use words such as “valuable,”
“good,” and “better,” what do we mean by them? Let’s see.
For an item to be valuable is for it to be meaningful. We call something
valuable when it has some features that the valuer is looking for, or
expecting – else he or she would not call it ‘valuable.’
For example, a valuable hammer will have some of the qualities, some
of the features, that a hammer has in our picture of what a hammer is; a
good hammer will have everything – everything for which we are willing
to settle at the time we grade that hammer. As a hammer it will be full
of (hammer) meaning. It’s the same with ‘a good phone-call.’ And in
the same way, a good life will be a highly-meaningful life.
To be better is to be richer in meaning, to be more valuable: for when we
say this thing is better than that thing we mean this one is more valuable
than that one. Even values themselves can be compared this way. A
better value will be a value that is richer in meaning.
We want to define these words so that later we can discuss “the good
person” and be clear about what we are saying. For, after all, ethics –
which is something everyone should care about – concerns the good
person, and concerns What is the Good Life for the good person? Is a
moral life the good life? Maybe. But what would that mean? Future
chapters will hone in on that subject.
What say you? All intelligent and constructivecomments and questions are welcome.
BIW,The booklet is entitled LIVING THE GOOD LIFE. Here is a link to it: - http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/Living_The_Good_Lifef.pdf
What makes the Good Life good?
Let’s offer some basics. We’ll inquire as to what makes anything good –
for example, a hammer or a telephone call? Then we’ll be in a position
to understand what makes a good life good. We’ll take up four profound
questions here in this chapter: What’s valuable? What does “good”
mean? What’s better? And finally: Are there types of value, some
better than others? All of this will give us a clear understanding of why a life
(or anything else for that matter) has been described as "good."
After that we will be ready to consider the question: Who
is the good life good for? You see, we’d like to take some of the
vagueness and confusion out of these important matters in order to gain
clarity regarding our topic – which is Living the Good Life. So let’s turn
first to the important question, What does the word “value” mean?
Have you ever wondered What’s valuable? Or What do people mean
when they use that term? It wouldn’t hurt to define what we’re talking
about. It might even be helpful. When we use words such as “valuable,”
“good,” and “better,” what do we mean by them? Let’s see.
For an item to be valuable is for it to be meaningful. We call something
valuable when it has some features that the valuer is looking for, or
expecting – else he or she would not call it ‘valuable.’
For example, a valuable hammer will have some of the qualities, some
of the features, that a hammer has in our picture of what a hammer is; a
good hammer will have everything – everything for which we are willing
to settle at the time we grade that hammer. As a hammer it will be full
of (hammer) meaning. It’s the same with ‘a good phone-call.’ And in
the same way, a good life will be a highly-meaningful life.
To be better is to be richer in meaning, to be more valuable: for when we
say this thing is better than that thing we mean this one is more valuable
than that one. Even values themselves can be compared this way. A
better value will be a value that is richer in meaning.
We want to define these words so that later we can discuss “the good
person” and be clear about what we are saying. For, after all, ethics –
which is something everyone should care about – concerns the good
person, and concerns What is the Good Life for the good person? Is a
moral life the good life? Maybe. But what would that mean? Future
chapters will hone in on that subject.
What say you? All intelligent and constructivecomments and questions are welcome.
Comments (52)
Your text is a shallow and meandering sequence of mock aphorisms and rhetorical questions.
Get to the point.
Greetings, Banno my friend:
I am among your admirers for the wise contributions and upgrades you have made to this Forum.
Careful readers will note that I presented the opening remarks of a text that went into detail, {perhaps too much so, demonstrating that a teacher who knew Ethics could succeed in explaining the points to kids in the first few grades at primary school.] Even so there is always the chance that some folks - present company excepted - would miss the points which I had hoped to make in a plain manner.
In my initial discussion post I set out to clarify what Hartman managed to do. He died believing that he had launched a science of 'value.' ...a research study the axiom for which is his definition of the concept "good." I give him a lot of credit for that!
I am genuinely sorry if I failed to express, or convey, in simple language, the monumental breakthrough that Hartman achieved!!
I may be wrong, but I think Banno you would get a lot out of the first 18 pages of sections in a more-serious book: MC.Katz, ETHICS: A College Course. Here, for your convenience, is a link to it:
http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/Ethics_A_College_Course.pdf
[It is safe-to-open. Study it, and enjoy!
Like Banno, I'm not sure what your point is, Marvin, but my own thoughts on "The Good Life" are sketched here (with embedded links to older posts of mine): https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/649207
in the framework of my metaethical précis from a previous thread of yours:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/695307
You are questioning the nature of the good and the moral, aren't you? That is your "point", right?
So the post above yours is obviously the kind of behavior that is being questioned, right? Is said post an expression of the good and the moral? Is this behavior "normal"? Civil? Does the command being issued in that post command any goodness? Or does the post disqualify the poster from posting in such a thread?
So instead of poisoning the goodness and the moral, perhaps the poster may have asked you "constructively", "hey, can you narrow down your points"? But see, impotency usually can't be constructive. Usually it is destructive.
I just now, as you were posting, entered a response to my friend, Banno. You will see it above your comment.
Well, i am inquiring with you. Thank you.
You haven't given any reason for leaving my other dozen reads to pay attention to yours.
Good for you trying to articulate your thoughts on this subject. But do we need yet another text on morality?
I think the work would benefit from being more organised and concise - I got lost in it all. There doesn't seem to be a flow to an argument that is building a coherent approach to the subject. It seems to me to be a series of incomplete vignettes on various themes. The language is sometimes awkward.
I noticed you include Mother Teresa as an example of compassion. Are you aware of the criticism around her fraudulent and narcissistic activities in Calcutta, a perpetuation of suffering in the name of a deity she barely believed in? Maybe you could use her as an example to illustrate just how much the idea of 'the good' involves contested value systems.
Better to start a thread about his Ethics than attempt to reinvent the wheel.
Here's a list I came up with in re the so-called good life:
1. Self-actualization (be the best you can be, in mind, heart and in body)
2. Harmony, both internal (with yourself) and external (with others and the world at large)
3. Xin (heart-mind) - let reason guide you, but listen to your heart too.
In more modern terms:
1. IQ/Intelligence Quotient (be rational)
2. EQ/Emotional Quotient (emotional stability)
3. PQ/Physical Quotient (something that I thought up, seems self-explanatory)
In conclusion, if you aim to be an ethical individual, one who truly understands Ethics and wants to live it, you would be the best you can be, in mind, heart and in body. You would endorse and encourage the spread of harmony. You will aim to be rational by working to improve your intelligence and scope of your reliable knowledge. And you will cultivate emotional stability, and treasure it. Also you would aim to optimize your physical fitness and your health.
If you familiarize yourself with my writings you will find each of those themes were given emphasis. I have an entire chapter in LIVING WELL entitled 'Achieving Emotional Peace.' See p.. 16 here:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LIVING%20WELL-How%20ethics%20helps%20us%20flourish.pdf
And so forth for the other values you have come to recognize as you gained wisdom.
Good work, Smith!
Yes, this a gem. Like not being McNutty, passively or otherwise. Like not getting your panties in a bunch.
Thanks, Tom. You get it!
We do need to supply competent, precise, plain-spoken material for the curriculum of instructors in Ethics who will be hired, and who are now being hired, by major global corporations to teach a seminar in "Ethics." I have learned that this is happening more and more lately; companies are assigning people to give such an Adult-Ed course to their upper management personnel.
I envision the content of my stuff to eventually serve such a purpose. How it will be arranged I don't know Perhaps you could figure out how to be instrumental in making this vision come to pass
p.s. In my discussion here at the Forum on the subject of Can Morality Ever Be Objective? I upgraded and improved my earlier definition of "morality." I would add that new understanding of it to any future booklet or paper - if any - I would write on the topic.
In the meantime, read over my more-recent effort to teach Ethics; then let us know what you thought of it. - http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/THE%20STRUCTURE%20OF%20ETHICS.pdf
I'm going to attempt to come to the point now. (Tell me if this helps, please.)
When something that is actual and specific meets up with and matches an ideal we have in mind for things of that sort, we say that there is "value." In other words, a valuable book, for example, would be a book that has properties that match (correspond to) what we picture as the qualities (attributes) that a book book ought to have! Some actual thing, effect, or person that has ALL the properties (rather than merely some) we are likely to judge as "Good." A good meal has everything you believe a meal should have. This applies to a meal or anything else.
Hence, "a good life" is one that has all the properties of a life that you, the judge, would (as well as most of us) want. Likely that includes: happy memories, mountain-top experiences, quality-time with those you love, time and resources to pursue your favorite hobbies and interests, achievements one could be proud of, etc. [For someone else - who is not as moral and ethical - it might include fame, wealth, notoriety.] What makes the good life "good" is that , from the point of view of the one making the assessment, the life has it all. It's all there!
One might observe, that to be better than merely [u]good[u] is to be excellent, or outstanding, or unique. ...these values may signify an even-further richness of qualities.
To review, when the actual matches the ideal there is value. When something has all, or even more than you are looking for, you call it good ...or let's say, if you went into a store to buy a drill, (or a chair),, for example, and the sales-person showed you one that has more than you expected, you exclaim: "I'll take it!"
I hope and trust that now I made the point clear.
Comments? Questons? Reactions? Your views are welcome!
So the good life is where you get what you want.
Well, there's that sorted, then.
Felicity Kendal.
I think so. Penelope Keith didn't float my Aristotelian boat.
In that use of 'good' perhaps only if people are to be viewed as tools. For instance, when assessed by a military dictator, a person might be rated as 'good' if, like the pen, they are good at a particular function - efficient killing perhaps in this instance. But from a moral perspective, they might be seen as far from good, for the same reason. The Good is different from good at something. The Geek sense of The Good is Platonism - a transcendent value that some human behavior might be described as an instantiation of, e.g., self-sacrifice for the sake of a vulnerable community.
I have to agree with what you say - the world's problems seem traceable back to one/more moral flaws either in an individual or of a group. Nevertheless, Nietzsche did write a book titled Beyond Good and Evil. I do realize that ethics is priority #1 and Nietzsche's conduct is like that of a quixotic battlefield surgeon who asks a mortally wounded soldier "how many rivets does the Eiffel tower have?" Yet I feel, despite the trials & tribulations I'm going through, the question "what lies beyond ethics?" is worth asking.
Of course. Beyond good and evil is the post-modern project in a nutshell. But is there anything to any subject beyond our use of language and abstract ideas? The Platonists seem to think so. The modern secular world is of course largely of the view (if they consider it at all) that all we have are human values held by intersubjective communities who share meaning. I have no idea if there is anything more than this and am generally guided by the Golden Rule or Rabbi Hillel's 'silver' variation thereof.
How? Can you explain?
:chin: There's some semblance of the beyond but not quite in my humble opinion. Nevertheless, a valiant attempt which deserves a gold star despite the fact that it wasn't intentional - a happy accident, I love it!
You then said in your post:
"a good life will be a highly-meaningful life."
So is not your answer that it is richness of meaning which makes a good life good?
Sounds true enough to me.
A bad dog is useful as a guard.
One might say, of a human life, that a good life is one that makes its own judgement of itself wholeheartedly and insightfully. A poor life, by contrast, is always occupied with judgement of others.
He handed me the cigarette and told me to take a draw and inhale deeply.
After my retching fit ended, I told my father that smoking was disgusting and I would never do it. I never have. He tried the same with whisky about a year later and I responded in a similar way.
I have never smoked but I love single malt scotch whisky (In moderation of course).
Can we teach someone how to live a good life considering all the nuances involved?
I think we must try to guide our children on morality/ethics. They must be a part of general education but whose morality and whose ethics? There would have to be a globally agreed curriculum or else there will always be moral and ethical clashes due to different emphasis or cultural priorities based on such issues as theistic dogma. Can someone know what good is without experiencing bad?
Is touching the fire the only way to instantly know never to touch the fire again?
Is there a foolproof recipe or list of do's and don'ts for living a good life, regardless of circumstance?
The goo life is a happy life. And "happiness" is wanting what you get.
"Success" is getting what you want.
The beauty of it is: If you choose to be happy as your aim, and you get it -- then you can have both: success AND happiness!
Yes. You understand an important part of the case I was making, Yohan. Thank you for the sincere compliment; and for your insight and wisdom.
Excellent observation! You got that right!!
As you may have noticed, my writings in Ethics stress the point that to be ethical is to be non-judgmental ethically-speaking A good moral standard, I would argue, is: "I will not morally judge others!"
Quare?
Eudaimonia sounds impractical. Who actually has achieved it?
Quoting Agent Smith
I know!
Rather than attempting to feed us pablum in the guise of "science", you would do well to acknowledge that the question is aporetic. It is clear, however, that you think the question has been adequately answered, and you are here to provide us with that answer, via Hartman. And as a bonus, free of charge, you include your "college course" on ethics. You do note the importance of questions, but only in order to provide your "scientific" answers.
Not sure that sacrificing yourself to yourself to save us from yourself and from rules you made yourself - counts. Given Yahweh is jealous, vengeful and murderous, like any Mafia Don, then Jesus is part of the problem.
Sadly, I'll have to agree with you. If the world were a novel, Jesus is a poorly developed chracter. I wrote it on the spur of the moment - it just felt right then, not so now. Muchas gracias, señor!
:up: By the way, what, in your assessment, would be a good life? It seems that because the Greeks thought of morality in terms of character (of a person), Jesus (a good person according to Christians) was the first to cross my mind.
I knew a man who died this year aged 98. He believed in moderation in all things, living simply, planting trees, taking care of family and friends, keeping the noise down, not asking for special treatment and looking after the environment. He thought the idea of god/s were unnecessary and believed that religions generally led to conflict. He liked to garden and read books and preferred to stay out of arguments. Good health mattered more to him than money. He appreciated paying taxes and he trusted strangers. That's pretty close to a good life from where I sit.
What an intellectual man he was! :flower: :sparkle:
I have problems with the idea of value systems. No doubt we have things we value, but I do not think that they form systems.
It is commonly held, and some might regard it as a truism, that what we value is what is good. But the question arises whether we ought to value something because it is good rather than regard it as good because we value it?
I've been happy enough with the idea, although I would never say it is perfect and maybe the word 'system' needs refinement. Some people hold to several systems or values presuppositions or values structures at once, say, Catholic social justice teachings and neoliberalism and view most activities through those lenses and may be tested by the inherent contradictions. So the systems I am thinking of do not work smoothly like a machine. I guess 'value system' means worldview. I also don't think people value notions because they are good as such. I think they value them often without knowing why and sometimes without even knowing that they hold them. For many people values are like a bedrock of 'reality' to them.
But it's worth thinking about some more and any further thoughts welcome.
I suspect that what is generally meant by a value system is simply those things they value rather than values that are systematically derived, determined, ordered, integrated and applied. Further, it may be that we cannot always say in advance what it is we value until we are confronted with a situation where we must act or decide.
What we may regard as good is what in one sense or another we value, but I think this falls short of what ethical deliberation requires. My own view follows that of Plato and Aristotle - it does not focus on values but on the question of the good. We all desire what is good, but the good does not guide our deliberations. It is rather what those deliberations aim at. The question of the good is aporetic. Short of knowledge of the good the best we can do is what upon deliberation seems best, and the flexibility of thought to modify what seems to be as needed.
Do you value truth and beauty along with the good?
Quoting Fooloso4
Agree. Maybe I will use 'beliefs and values' from now on.
Quoting Fooloso4
No question. And what people say (or think) they value is often not what they value in practice.
I do not consider myself a traditionalist. In part because I don't know what is included or excluded from the tradition. I am a Marxist ... Groucho, that is: "Whatever it is I'm against it".
Quoting Tom Storm
So, you're a traditionalist! The notion of human flourishing (eudemonia) is from Aristotle's Ethics.
Quoting Tom Storm
Yes, but do not give them equal status. I prefer Plato's "trinity", the just, the beautiful, and the good. But I do not regard them as eternal Forms. I think that is a misreading of Plato. I have made the case for that elsewhere on the forum.
Quoting Tom Storm
Agreed. Good point.
Certainly.
Nice. Yes, I remember that debate.