Are there no good people?

[marco]

Why do we concentrate on man's badness and forget his goodness, his clever efforts to make life better? I watched a TV documentary about a lady who rescued hundreds of injured wild animals and birds. She feeds them like a mother and restores them to health and puts them back into their own environment. I immediately thought: "What a kind soul" but one would be hard pressed to find praise for such actions in the Bible.


Much of what Christ says is condemnation. There are no good people. (Mark 10: 18) I disagree; the world is full of good people.


So was Christ wrong? Are there no good people? Should the lady in the story be called "good"?

[marco]

If the world were full of good people, why are we not hearing more good news?

God News sells Bibles but not newspapers.

Is good an absolute? Something we could all easily agree to/with? If not, then why do you suppose "the world is full of good people"?

I don't see the link between the philosophical concept of absolute and a simple statement that there are many good people in the world. The Slavs have a saying: "The world is not without good people." The Slavs may be wrong of course.

Why not just think of the lady as doing the right thing in this case? What do we actually know of the woman in the story? Perhaps she is one of those types who are happy to give a hand to such animals as these but equally happy to shun helping fellow humans?

I was once told that Isaac might have been a wicked lad, and that's the unknown reason why God wanted him killed. When I see someone helping an old lady, I don't think "There goes a potential murderer."

The only thing we can know for sure about our self, is whether we are 'good' or not,

Well most of us don't know this at all. We are poor judges of what we are. Bias creeps in.

I think it is wise to understand that no one is good.

And wiser to accept that while we may see ourselves as not being good, we can generously give other people the benefit of the doubt. A religious belief that sees everyone as sinners has something of the night about it. Go well.

[Bust Nak]

This doesn't say anything about why it is good to help an animal. What you are suggesting here is that compliance (or acting correctly) with the standard is good.

Well that goes without saying - that's like saying the first rule of football is to follow the rules of football. Why is it a foul to punch an opposing player? Because the rules says so. I don't understand why you don't think that answers the why question.

But that says nothing at all about why that standard itself is inherently good.

Woah there, where did this come from? Who said anything about inherently good? I assure you it's quite extrinsic - it is good because the standard says so, not because it is somehow inherently good. Another standard may say it's bad to help animals.

It may as well be the case that what Hitler did was good and helping an animal is evil.

It might be, but it isn't, because the standard in question (i.e. the one that says what Hitler did was evil and helping animal is good) says otherwise.

The standards are little more than arbitrary human sentiments which have come about through evolutionary pressures.

Right you are, but if you knew this, why did you bring up "inherently good?"

[Goose]

I wonder what the alternative view is. Remnants of cannibalism remain, so yes, man has evolved morally. Do we suppose God planted a moral chip in some individuals while forgetting others? God as an explanation for thunder or morality is surely a thing of the past.

Marco, for all the words you are typing you aren’t answering the question. Why is it good to help animals? What is good about that?

You are simply making moral assertions. You imply here those who do not practise cannibalism have evolved morally. That those of us who do not eat the flesh of humans are morally superior in some way. But under atheism why is it immoral to practise cannibalism? Why is it morally acceptable to eat the flesh of a chicken but morally unacceptable to eat the flesh of a human? How can you justify this when under atheism (and naturalistic evolution, etc.) there’s nothing inherently special about humans since they are just another animal?

Let’s come back to your OP though because we’ve strayed. You argued Christ was wrong when he said this:

�No one is good except God alone.� Mark 10:18

The intended meaning here is that no one is good as in no one is wholly good. The idea being that only God is morally perfect and perfectly good.

Now it seems to me you have taken Jesus’ words to mean no one is good, as in no one has done a good thing.

If you are attempting to falsify the former idea you need to show a person who is wholly good having never done any bad thing whatsoever.

If you are attempting to falsify the latter you are knocking down a strawman.

[Goose]

Why is it a foul to punch an opposing player? Because the rules says so.

All you did here was arbitrarily pick a sport that has such a rule. What do we say about sports, such as boxing or MMA, where the standard says it’s good to punch the opposition? You see, the rule in football that says it’s a foul to punch an opposing player doesn’t tell me why it’s bad to punch an opposing player. It just tells me one of the fouls in football.

I don't understand why you don't think that answers the why question.

Because I’m not asking what the standard is or what the rules of football are. I’m aware of the standard you are suggesting and I know the rules to football. I’m asking why is it good to help an animal under atheism and all it entails? Or put another way, under atheism what’s good about the act of helping an animal?

Woah there, where did this come from? Who said anything about inherently good?

I did. I said it because when we say some course of action is good we imply that we can perceive something inherently good about that action itself. That’s what allows us to make moral decisions about a course of action for which there is no existing rule.

I assure you it's quite extrinsic - it is good because the standard says so, not because it is somehow inherently good. Another standard may say it's bad to help animals.

But then we just have different sets of standards in this view. Neither standard can be said to be good or bad in this view. That puts any person well within their moral rights to choose either standard. May as well flip a coin.

It might be, but it isn't, because the standard in question (i.e. the one that says what Hitler did was evil and helping animal is good) says otherwise.

You don’t get to say “it isn’t� good what Hitler did because according to you there is nothing inherently good or bad about what Hitler did. What Hitler did to the Jews just runs against your preferred standard. You only get to point out that there are different standards. Your standard says what Hitler did was not good. Hitler’s standard says what he did was good.

And that’s only what your standard says now. Under naturalistic evolution, given enough time, your standard may well evolve to say otherwise. In time, what Hitler did may become “good� and helping an animal may become “evil.� Or if Hitler had just happened to win WWII and managed to eliminate anyone who disagreed with his standard you may very well be arguing that what he did was good.

[marco]

You are simply making moral assertions. You imply here those who do not practise cannibalism have evolved morally. That those of us who do not eat the flesh of humans are morally superior in some way. But under atheism why is it immoral to practise cannibalism?

The Romans didn't practise cannibalism. Do you suppose Jupiter advised them? You appear to confuse atheism with some creed that cannot make moral judgments. Atheists principally reject the biblical God, and some may extend their disbelief to all gods. I cannot see what this conviction has to do with eating human flesh. An atheistic society might value honesty, honour, courage, moderation. It would be laughable to contend we don't eat each other because God told us not to.

Let’s come back to your OP though because we’ve strayed. You argued Christ was wrong when he said this:

�No one is good except God alone.� Mark 10:18

The intended meaning here is that no one is good as in no one is wholly good. The idea being that only God is morally perfect and perfectly good.

The adverb is missing from Christ's statement. You've invented it. Somebody had the misfortune to say: "Good teacher," a harmless, everyday remark. It was inappropriate for Jesus to attempt to deliver a seminar on absolute goodness when he was faced with this simple remark.

Now it seems to me you have taken Jesus’ words to mean no one is good, as in no one has done a good thing.

If you are attempting to falsify the former idea you need to show a person who is wholly good having never done any bad thing whatsoever.

If you are attempting to falsify the latter you are knocking down a strawman.

I am addressing Christ's statement, not your addendum to it. If Jesus wanted to say nobody has the absolute goodness of God, fine. That's not what he is reported as saying. We use the word good to describe a meal, a morning or a mug of tea without reference to God. I wonder if the good Lord would have objected to the greeting "Good morning, master," with the same rude pedantry.

But let me repeat: it is "Call nobody good" that I am discussing, not the infinite goodness of some deity.

[Bust Nak]

All you did here was arbitrarily pick a sport that has such a rule. What do we say about sports, such as boxing or MMA, where the standard says it’s good to punch the opposition?

We say that's not football so the rules of football is irrelevant. Instead we use the rules for boxing or MMA.

You see, the rule in football that says it’s a foul to punch an opposing player doesn’t tell me why it’s bad to punch an opposing player. It just tells me one of the fouls in football.

Right, but tell me you understood the analogy? That the one and only reason why punching someone is a foul in football, is because the rule says so. That the rule says so, is the full explaination why it's a foul.

And if you do accept that because that much then it's simple to apply the same thought to morality? The rules of football says what is and isn't a foul; the standard of morality says what is and isn't good/bad.

Because I’m not asking what the standard is or what the rules of football are. I’m aware of the standard you are suggesting and I know the rules to football. I’m asking why is it good to help an animal under atheism and all it entails?

Asked and answered: because the relevant standard says it is good, that's the sole reason why it's good.

Or put another way, under atheism what’s good about the act of helping an animal?

It's good because it correspond to a particular standard of good. That's true regardless of views of atheism.

I did. I said it because when we say some course of action is good we imply that we can perceive something inherently good about that action itself. That’s what allows us to make moral decisions about a course of action for which there is no existing rule.

Who is this we? I imply no such thing when I say it's good to help animals - I make moral decision about a course of action for base on existing rule/standard.

But then we just have different sets of standards in this view. Neither standard can be said to be good or bad in this view.

Why would you think not? It's easy to say one is good and another bad, just appeal to a a standard that says certain things are good/bad.

That puts any person well within their moral rights to choose either standard. May as well flip a coin.

Not if the standard in question says it's wrong to pick another standard, or use a coin flip.

You don’t get to say “it isn’t� good what Hitler did because according to you there is nothing inherently good or bad about what Hitler did.

Why? Seems like a non-sequitur to me, fill in the gaps for me:

1) what Hitler did is not inherently bad (premise)
...
n) Therefore Bust Nak does not a say as to whether what Hitler did is bad or not.

What Hitler did to the Jews just runs against your preferred standard. You only get to point out that there are different standards.

Again, why? That's like saying: "you don't get to call foul when someone punches an opponent in a game of football. Punching opponent just runs against the rules of football. You only get to point of that there are different rules. Football rule says what punching is a foul. Boxing rule says punching is allowed."

Your standard says what Hitler did was not good. Hitler’s standard says what he did was good.

Right, and somehow you are not seeing how the bit I highlighted is exactly why I can say what Hitler did was not good?

And that’s only what your standard says now. Under naturalistic evolution, given enough time, your standard may well evolve to say otherwise...

Individuals don't evolve. I am going to pretent that you said my desentants may well evolve in such a way that their perfered standard say otherwise. To which I'd say, sure, it might. Something like that has already happened: my ancestors' standard says homosexuality is wrong, a mere two generations later, mine says otherwise. Is that a problem?

[Goose]

We say that's not football so the rules of football is irrelevant. Instead we use the rules for boxing or MMA.

This is a form of moral relativism. You asked the general ethical and analogous question, “Why is it a foul to punch an opposing player?� You then went on to say it is a foul because the rules in football say it is. So relative to football punching an opponent is bad. However, relative to MMA punching an opponent is good. And since Bob prefers the rules of MMA he holds that punching an opponent is good. So we are no closer to answering the question, why is it bad to punch an opponent. Unless of course we simply assume, with no justification whatsoever, the rules of football are the rules by which all sports ought to conduct themselves.

Right, but tell me you understood the analogy? That the one and only reason why punching someone is a foul in football, is because the rule says so. That the rule says so, is the full explaination why it's a foul [in football].

That merely tells me why it is a foul in football. I could say the rules for football are irrelevant to answering the question of why is it bad to punch an opponent. Your analogy does not tell me why it is bad to punch an opponent. And that's the analogous question which has been asked.

Furthermore, the way you’re framing this analogy you make it sound like the rules of football just are. As though the rules themselves are self determining entities which say one thing or another. You don’t really think that though. You know full well there are people behind the rules. The rules are deliberated upon and for some reason the people who make the rules for football decided to make it a foul to punch an opponent whereas in MMA the rules encourage punching an opponent. I’m asking why those people who determine the rules for football made it such that punching an opponent is a foul? In essence I’m asking for the reasons why they think it should be a foul. With the analogy carried over I’m asking why you (or whomever) have made the standard in question such that helping an animal is good? Or why is it that what Hitler did is bad? What are your reasons for thinking so?

It's good because it correspond to a particular standard of good.

But that doesn’t tell me what’s good about the act of helping an animal. That just tells me I’ve done something good when I comply with an arbitrary standard. If the standard of good was to be cruel to animals or slaughter Jews it would be good to do these things. Because, in your view, the standard itself is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. Good has nothing at all to do with the standard itself. Good is the act of compliance with whatever the standard says is good.

Why would you think not? It's easy to say one is good and another bad, just appeal to a a standard that says certain things are good/bad.

I don’t quite follow you here. It seems you are saying I’m free to choose whatever standard for good/bad I want in any given situation to attain the desired moral outcome. So if I’m playing football and I want to punch someone I just appeal to the rules of MMA and say something like well it’s okay to punch an opponent in MMA.

Now you might be saying to appeal to a standard that has the capability to say certain things are good or bad. But then we still just have different sets of standards. Neither standard itself can be said to be good or bad. I don’t see how you’ve addressed this.

Not if the standard in question says it's wrong to pick another standard, or use a coin flip.

Well so what if one standard says it’s wrong to pick another standard? A person can just choose the standard that allows one to pick whatever one wants. Since it’s all arbitrary no person is morally obligated to follow any particular standard. Just pick the standard one likes.

You don’t get to say “it isn’t� good what Hitler did because according to you there is nothing inherently good or bad about what Hitler did.

Why?

Here’s why. When I pointed out in post 19 the way you were framing things that it may as well be the case that what Hitler did was good you replied in post 22, “It might be, but it is [not]...�

You explicitly asserted a moral fact. The moment you said “it isn’t� in reply to what I said you negated the case. You asserted it is not the case that what Hitler did was good. You then went on to assert it is not the case what Hitler did was good because the standard you arbitrarily prefer says it is not. In other words, you justified a moral fact with an arbitrary moral standard. And it’s an arbitrary standard because you refuse to acknowledge there is anything inherently bad about what Hitler did. It’s just bad according to your standard. You don’t get to assert moral facts if you are a moral relativist or subjectivist.

Again, why? That's like saying: "you don't get to call foul when someone punches an opponent in a game of football. Punching opponent just runs against the rules of football. You only get to point of that there are different rules. Football rule says what punching is a foul. Boxing rule says punching is allowed."

Exactly. It’s only relative to your preferred standard that punching an opponent is bad. You’ve offered no further justification for why it is bad to punch an opponent. That’s why you only get to point out it runs against your preferred standard.

Right, and somehow you are not seeing how the bit I highlighted is exactly why I can say what Hitler did was not good?

Oh sure you can say it not good. Just like Bob can say what Hitler did was good. You just can’t say it as a moral fact what Hitler did was not good because you don’t allow for moral facts. In the end, it’s just two different sets of moral opinions, right? We’re no closer to answering the question why it is bad to kill Jews. Or why it is good to help animals. Or why it is good to help the poor. Or why it is bad to punch an opponent.

Individuals don't evolve. I am going to pretent that you said my desentants may well evolve in such a way that their perfered standard say otherwise. To which I'd say, sure, it might. Something like that has already happened: my ancestors' standard says homosexuality is wrong, a mere two generations later, mine says otherwise. Is that a problem?

Yes I meant your standard may evolve as in the standard held by your (our) descendants may evolve, not that you personally will evolve.

Your example is a problem for anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong. I think this issue of evolving moral standards only matters for those who are concerned about the moral state of future generations. If one doesn’t care about that then I don’t see how this would pose a problem. If one does care about the moral state of future generations, then yes this possesses a problem. Under naturalistic evolution morals evolve. In a few generations the moral standard may evolve to where killing Jews and cruelty to animals is good. And helping the poor is bad.

As an atheist I don’t see why the moral state of future generations should matter at all. The atheist will be long dead when the standard has evolved to where it says killing Jews is good. If an atheist does happen to care about the moral state of future generations I would wonder why it would matter to an atheist?

[Goose]

Let’s come back to your OP though because we’ve strayed. You argued Christ was wrong when he said this:

�No one is good except God alone.� Mark 10:18

The intended meaning here is that no one is good as in no one is wholly good. The idea being that only God is morally perfect and perfectly good.

The adverb is missing from Christ's statement. You've invented it.

Firstly, a very minor quibble. Wholly here is an adjective, not an adverb.

More importantly you complain the adjective wholly is missing from Christ’s statement. You make the accusation that I’ve “invented it.�

Ironically, you then go on to say this...

Now it seems to me you have taken Jesus’ words to mean no one is good, as in no one has done a good thing.

If you are attempting to falsify the former idea you need to show a person who is wholly good having never done any bad thing whatsoever.

If you are attempting to falsify the latter you are knocking down a strawman.

I am addressing Christ's statement, not your addendum to it. If Jesus wanted to say nobody has the absolute goodness of God, fine. That's not what he is reported as saying. We use the word good to describe a meal, a morning or a mug of tea without reference to God. I wonder if the good Lord would have objected to the greeting "Good morning, master," with the same rude pedantry.

But let me repeat: it is "Call nobody good" that I am discussing, not the infinite goodness of some deity.

But Jesus never said, "Call nobody good.� The word �call� is missing from the statement, “no one is good except God alone.� You’ve likewise “invented� call here. So like I said, you seem not to be consider the context and are therefore knocking down a strawman.

[marco]

Firstly, a very minor quibble. Wholly here is an adjective, not an adverb.

More importantly you complain the adjective wholly is missing from Christ’s statement. You make the accusation that I’ve “invented it.�

I didn't complain of an adjective but about the adverb "wholly". It is an adverb of degree. You are attracted into calling it an adjective by regarding "good" as a noun; the word "wholly" still remains an adverb of degree, not a descriptor of the noun. No one is possessed of holiness to a complete extent. The last four words are an adverbial phrase of degree. You make the comment: "The idea being that only God is morally perfect and perfectly good. " Perfectly performs the same adverbial role here.

While we're on grammatical holiness the carol "God rest ye merry gentlemen" has a similar curiosity in that the word merry is used as an adverb here, not as an adjective describing the men.

[marco]

But let me repeat: it is "Call nobody good" that I am discussing, not the infinite goodness of some deity.

But Jesus never said, "Call nobody good.� The word �call� is missing from the statement, “no one is good except God alone.� You’ve likewise “invented� call here. So like I said, you seem not to be consider the context and are therefore knocking down a strawman.[/quote]


Well if we are reduced to such finesse I feel I've already won. I was saying that you added words Jesus did not use. You placed a meaning there that his reported speech does not justify. I did not. Here is Jesus:-

"And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God."
Can we see the word call, in its obsolete, 2nd person singular form? Christ didn't speak in English but quite certainly what he was saying had the meaning: "Call no one good" since he's rebuking someone for calling him good. My rendering invoves no change in meaning; yours does. Can we discuss Christ's words then, not yours?


My best wishes.