Definition of Right/Wrong

[piap]

Hello all.
My first post...

How do you define a 'good' action?
How do you define an 'evil' action?
How do you define the word 'ought'?

I am interested in seeing answers from all, atheists and theists alike.

thank you

[Thought Criminal]

Hello all.
My first post...

How do you define a 'morally good' action?
How do you define a 'morally evil' action?

I am interested in seeing answers from all, atheists and theists alike.

thank you

Before I answer, I would point out that "morally good" is redundant, as is "morally evil". Good and evil are necessarily concepts relating to morality, though they're a bit excessive. We can speak more simply of things being moral or immoral. Ok, enough semantics.

Being moral means considering all of the available options and choosing the one that seems most likely to optimize for the benefit of all concerned.

TC

[piap]

Before I answer, I would point out that "morally good" is redundant, as is "morally evil". Good and evil are necessarily concepts relating to morality, though they're a bit excessive. We can speak more simply of things being moral or immoral. Ok, enough semantics.

Being moral means considering all of the available options and choosing the one that seems most likely to optimize for the benefit of all concerned.

TC

thank you for the response.
When the term 'moral' is used the speaker seems to presume that one 'ought' to act morally. This is why I think these definitions are somewhat problematic. I suspect that this 'oughtness' is what I originally intended to explore, so I am adding another question to my original post: What is the definition of 'ought'.

thanks

[McCulloch]

Hello all.
My first post...

Welcome

How do you define a 'good' action?
How do you define an 'evil' action?
How do you define the word 'ought'?

Last one first. One ought to do good and to avoid evil.

A good act is one which improves the overall happiness of humanity. An evil act is one which reduces it.

[Thought Criminal]

thank you for the response.
When the term 'moral' is used the speaker seems to presume that one 'ought' to act morally. This is why I think these definitions are somewhat problematic. I suspect that this 'oughtness' is what I originally intended to explore, so I am adding another question to my original post: What is the definition of 'ought'.

thanks

Taking a step back, the big question for morality is "What ought we do?". The answer, as above, is that we ought to do what benefits us.

TC

[Thought Criminal]

A good act is one which improves the overall happiness of humanity. An evil act is one which reduces it.

If we could add a chemical to the water supply that made everyone happy but changed nothing else, should we? What if the chemical made them so happy they did nothing but drink water until they died (happily) of starvation?

Happiness is often a good indicator that the things which benefit us are happening, but it's not much of a goal in itself. Remember the story of J.S. Mill and the happy pig?

TC

[JoeyKnothead]

Hello all.
My first post...

How do you define a 'good' action?
How do you define an 'evil' action?
How do you define the word 'ought'?

I am interested in seeing answers from all, atheists and theists alike.

thank you

A good action would be any that give joy to someone, benefits someone, and of course does not harm anyone

An evil action would be the opposite of the above

Ought = we should all strive to do only the good actions

Of course these are simplistic, but I think they present my case well

[McCulloch]

A good act is one which improves the overall happiness of humanity. An evil act is one which reduces it.

If we could add a chemical to the water supply that made everyone happy but changed nothing else, should we? What if the chemical made them so happy they did nothing but drink water until they died (happily) of starvation?

Happiness is often a good indicator that the things which benefit us are happening, but it's not much of a goal in itself. Remember the story of J.S. Mill and the happy pig?

The exact meaning of happy is somewhat evasive. I don't think that dying of starvation, even in a chemically induced state of euphoria, qualifies as being truly happy.

[Thought Criminal]

If we could add a chemical to the water supply that made everyone happy but changed nothing else, should we? What if the chemical made them so happy they did nothing but drink water until they died (happily) of starvation?

Happiness is often a good indicator that the things which benefit us are happening, but it's not much of a goal in itself. Remember the story of J.S. Mill and the happy pig?

The exact meaning of happy is somewhat evasive. I don't think that dying of starvation, even in a chemically induced state of euphoria, qualifies as being truly happy.

I think the issue isn't whether someone is happy, but whether they should be happy with their life. This is where something like Maslow's hierarchy of needs fits in. The happiness brought about by my mystery drug is a false one because their basic physiological needs aren't being met.

TC

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

I believe good and evil to be in the eye of the beholder. There is no true good, or true evil, only personal perceptions of what is good and what is evil. There is also no action that we "'ought" to do. It is up to the person, and I won't be passing judgment and telling them they should do something differently.