How do I write a paper showing that there is such thing as good/justice/morals?

[datalink7]

Hi all,

I got this philosophy paper due tommorow. I was writing it on how there is no such thing as a objective good, and that justice is something that we make up. That the strong and winners of society write justice like they write history.

But now I am thinking that I want to try to write it the other way. That there is a good independent of what we believe and do. That there exists a "form" of justice that is true no matter what we do, and that we can try to achieve it.

The problem is, I believe the first way (and thus why I chose to write on that first). In fact, it is really easy for me to write on the first way. But I kind of want to challenge myself and go the other way.

I just am having a ah heck of a time getting started. Can you guys help me out? What do you think "good" is? Can you prove that "good" exists and isn't a figment of our imagination? Instead of made up so that we can live with each other in realitive harmony?

I just need some ideas. If I can't come up with some, I'll just go back to the easy route and finish my paper the other way. I can't seem to come up with a way to even approach a proof that "good" exists.

Thanks for any input

 

[hdeck]

That the strong and winners of society write justice like they write history.

i'd just like to challenge that statement. though it's often thought of as that way, a good contradiction is in the federalist/anti-federalist debates. though the anti-federalists lost, when people say "consitution" they think "bill of rights", an anti-federalist idea.

*hmm...paying attention in goverment really does help in real world situations, ha!*

 

[0roo0roo]

by looking up ethical relativism?

its full of sh*t btw

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
by looking up ethical relativism?

its full of sh*t btw

How so?

 

[0roo0roo]

it assumes the majority in any society is always right.

it assumes you/society cant evolve.

u can't judge anything really its pointless.

 

[gopunk]

can you really show that anything exists?

 

[lebe0024]

If you are a materialist (officially or practically), there is no such thing as morals (or at least no consistant basis for them).

AND if I you are a materialist and think differently, show me. You cannot have morals without some doctrinal basis for them.

Your landlord screws you out of your deposit. "Well , that's wrong."
Why? "Because she's not treating me with common respect."
Why should she? "Because you should value people more than money."
Why? Money won't lie to you, make fun of you. And money is a lot more dependable. You can get more for it too. Right? "But everyone knows that it's wrong." blah blah blah blah blah.

 

[xuanman]

what kind of paper is this? do you have to refer to any sources or is this a say whatever your opinion is type of deal?

 

[Kadarin]

I believe that "good" and "evil" are relative concepts, invented as a cultural artifact by humanity. So.. evil does exist (Hitler, Bin Laden, et al), but it exists only relative to the rest of humanity. I do not think you can prove that they are absolutes (i.e. remove humanity, and "good" and "evil" no longer exist). I think that the best you can hope for is to start with the assumption that humans are all pretty much the same in some respects, that we all need to eat, to breath, and would like to be happy, that we all have the right, generally speaking, to exist. Then you can define "evil" as to apply to those who would deliberately deny others those rights for no reason other than their own personal enjoyment.

I don't know, but it's a shot in the dark. Feel free to modify and expand on all that.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: xuanman
what kind of paper is this? do you have to refer to any sources or is this a say whatever your opinion is type of deal?

The question is this:

"In Book I of Plato's Republic, Thrasymachus argues that "justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger." Explain what he means by this. Why might someone agree with him? Do you? Why or why not?"

it assumes the majority in any society is always right.

it assumes you/society cant evolve.

u can't judge anything really its pointless.

Not quite. It assumes that you yourself decide what is right and what is wrong. You can judge things. You judge things by your own set of morals. That doesn't make you correct, but it doesn't make you wrong. It makes your position realitive.

Really, I am a moral realitivist. That doesn't mean that you can't judge anyone. I don't get why people say that. It just means that I don't think there is a concrete good in the world. But you can bet your ass I am going to judge someone by my own set of values.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
I believe that "good" and "evil" are relative concepts, invented as a cultural artifact by humanity. So.. evil does exist (Hitler, Bin Laden, et al), but it exists only relative to the rest of humanity. I do not think you can prove that they are absolutes (i.e. remove humanity, and "good" and "evil" no longer exist). I think that the best you can hope for is to start with the assumption that humans are all pretty much the same in some respects, that we all need to eat, to breath, and would like to be happy, that we all have the right, generally speaking, to exist. Then you can define "evil" as to apply to those who would deliberately deny others those rights for no reason other than their own personal enjoyment.

I don't know, but it's a shot in the dark. Feel free to modify and expand on all that.

I agree with you that "good" and "evil" are realitive concepts, and were invented by human culture. That is why I am having a hard time here. I am wanting to try to prove, against what I think, that they aren't realitive concepts. You might have something there about the basic need to eat, breath, etc. I might include something along those lines. Thanks for the thought

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: lebe0024
If you are a materialist (officially or practically), there is no such thing as morals (or at least no consistant basis for them).

AND if I you are a materialist and think differently, show me. You cannot have morals without some doctrinal basis for them.

Your landlord screws you out of your deposit. "Well , that's wrong."
Why? "Because she's not treating me with common respect."
Why should she? "Because you should value people more than money."
Why? Money won't lie to you, make fun of you. And money is a lot more dependable. You can get more for it too. Right? "But everyone knows that it's wrong." blah blah blah blah blah.

I am a materialist, but I want to try to pretend I'm not and write a paper trying to prove that there exists something called "good" or "justice."

 

[lebe0024]

Another example of the modern thought: "I will gain a sense of self from ... ... myself!" Yeah! That's it! Who needs validation!

Gosh, Modern thought is so dumb. The truth is, you know you need validation. You need someone to sincerely give you feedback.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: lebe0024
Another example of the modern thought: "I will gain a sense of self from ... ... myself!" Yeah! That's it! Who needs validation!

Gosh, Modern thought is so dumb. The truth is, you know you need validation. You need someone to sincerely give you feedback.

I don't quite get what you are getting at... Are you saying that because I don't have to back up my thoughts with sources it is a useless exercise?

 

[amnesiac]

It's philosophy, for Pete's sake. Just make something up. You can't get marked "wrong" on a philosophy paper.
I didn't even read my notes for my Philosophy class final and got an A by spewing out a full comp book's worth of BS.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: amnesiac 2.0
It's philosophy, for Pete's sake. Just make something up. You can't get marked "wrong" on a philosophy paper.
I didn't even read my notes for my Philosophy class final and got an A by spewing out a full comp book's worth of BS.

That wasn't the point of this whole thread. If I wanted to get an easy "A," I would just turn in the paper that I am almost done with (saying that there is no such thing as good/justice). But I wanted to try something harder, and just needed some ideas to get me started.

 

[ThreeLeggedGnome]

I doubt that morality, justice, good,...... exist outside of human species. Those, I believe, are human concepts. We invented them and they have worked extremely well in helping us shaping our civilization, yet ultimately they were invented by us to serve our own purposes. Same thing can be said of natural rights. Not that I'm against good, justice, natural rights,... just that I strongly doubt they are universial in a sense of being absolute.
It would be very hard to imagine a good anything outside of human species. For example, there is no such thing as a "good" lion since we have nothing to contrast a "good" lion against. Evilness/goodness dont exist outside of our species. The same argument can be said of justice and morality. The right to live, to be free, and to pursue our own happiness for example would be irrelevant if we try to apply them to any other species.
Of course, we then can argue that our species is superior to all known species thus enables us to be "aware" of such absolute concepts. Well, I'm kind of stuck here since I can't think of an argument against this unless we happen to run into an alien species that is interlectually superior to us then we would be able to tell if they are also aware of such concepts.
Anyway, all I'm saying is that I'm all for good/justice/morality just that they are like bubble gums, no matter how likable, it is 100% human-made.

 

[rgwalt]

The problem you are going to run into when trying to justify the position of ethical relativism is that one society can't pass judgement on another for the actions of that society. Ethical relativism can be used to justify the holocaust, Tianiman Square, and female genetal mutilation.

Ryan

 

[Dragnov]

It's called social welfare. -_-

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: lebe0024
Another example of the modern thought: "I will gain a sense of self from ... ... myself!" Yeah! That's it! Who needs validation!

Gosh, Modern thought is so dumb. The truth is, you know you need validation. You need someone to sincerely give you feedback.

I don't quite get what you are getting at... Are you saying that because I don't have to back up my thoughts with sources it is a useless exercise?

don't bother, lebe thinks all things not involving god are pointless

reason... why bother

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: ThreeLeggedGnome
I doubt that morality, justice, good,...... exist outside of human species. Those, I believe, are human concepts. We invented them and they have worked extremely well in helping us shaping our civilization, yet ultimately they were invented by us to serve our own purposes. Same thing can be said of natural rights. Not that I'm against good, justice, natural rights,... just that I strongly doubt they are universial in a sense of being absolute.
It would be very hard to imagine a good anything outside of human species. For example, there is no such thing as a "good" lion since we have nothing to contrast a "good" lion against. Evilness/goodness dont exist outside of our species. The same argument can be said of justice and morality. The right to live, to be free, and to pursue our own happiness for example would be irrelevant if we try to apply them to any other species.
Of course, we then can argue that our species is superior to all known species thus enables us to be "aware" of such absolute concepts. Well, I'm kind of stuck here since I can't think of an argument against this unless we happen to run into an alien species that is interlectually superior to us then we would be able to tell if they are also aware of such concepts.
Anyway, all I'm saying is that I'm all for good/justice/morality just that they are like bubble gums, no matter how likable, it is 100% human-made.

Yes. Thinking about it now, I think it would be impossible to try to prove that there is a "good" that exists outside of the human species. But what about a "good" that exists for the whole human species?

Like we can all say that, well, sticking needles in the eyes of babbies is a evil thing, and stopping someone from doing so would be good. But why is it bad? And what quality does the action of stopping them possess that makes it good? What is the quality of good/evil?

Actually, you did give me an idea. Don't try to prove that good exists outside the human species, but perhaps there exists a good inside the human species. You can try to prove something along those lines. Thanks

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: rgwalt
The problem you are going to run into when trying to justify the position of ethical relativism is that one society can't pass judgement on another for the actions of that society. Ethical relativism can be used to justify the holocaust, Tianiman Square, and female genetal mutilation.

Ryan

Wrong IMO. You can pass judgement on other societys based on YOUR (or your societies) moral standard. Just because you are a moral realtivist doesn't mean that you have to be passive.

 

[ThreeLeggedGnome]

If we stay within our species then I would say goodness/justice/morality are whatever the MAJORITY don't mind (or what we like) being done to ourselves or to our loved ones. Such as not being poked in the eye with the needle since we surely would not like ourselves or our babies to be poked in the eye with needle. Hence we claim poking the eye with needle is evil only because we are affraid that if we approve it (say that it is good) others might do it to us or to our loved ones.
Evilness/injustice happen when we experience that which we don't like being done to us or to the people around us.
For example:
If I were the only one in my neighborhood with a devastating weapon that would enable me to keep my neighborhood good and safe then I might claim using that weapon on my neighbors might bring good and justice to our neighborhood. But I would surely condemn the use of such weapon if everyone around my place owned one (since they might use it on me)
Of course that doesn't explain how a firefighter (or pick another of hundreds of things we do out there) would run into a fire disregarding his/her life trying to save someone else whom they might or might not know (or might even be someone they don't like)
.......nevermind it's 2 AM here im sleepy and confused

 

[ManSnake]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: ThreeLeggedGnome
I doubt that morality, justice, good,...... exist outside of human species. Those, I believe, are human concepts. We invented them and they have worked extremely well in helping us shaping our civilization, yet ultimately they were invented by us to serve our own purposes. Same thing can be said of natural rights. Not that I'm against good, justice, natural rights,... just that I strongly doubt they are universial in a sense of being absolute.
It would be very hard to imagine a good anything outside of human species. For example, there is no such thing as a "good" lion since we have nothing to contrast a "good" lion against. Evilness/goodness dont exist outside of our species. The same argument can be said of justice and morality. The right to live, to be free, and to pursue our own happiness for example would be irrelevant if we try to apply them to any other species.
Of course, we then can argue that our species is superior to all known species thus enables us to be "aware" of such absolute concepts. Well, I'm kind of stuck here since I can't think of an argument against this unless we happen to run into an alien species that is interlectually superior to us then we would be able to tell if they are also aware of such concepts.
Anyway, all I'm saying is that I'm all for good/justice/morality just that they are like bubble gums, no matter how likable, it is 100% human-made.

Yes. Thinking about it now, I think it would be impossible to try to prove that there is a "good" that exists outside of the human species. But what about a "good" that exists for the whole human species?

Like we can all say that, well, sticking needles in the eyes of babbies is a evil thing, and stopping someone from doing so would be good. But why is it bad? And what quality does the action of stopping them possess that makes it good? What is the quality of good/evil?

Actually, you did give me an idea. Don't try to prove that good exists outside the human species, but perhaps there exists a good inside the human species. You can try to prove something along those lines. Thanks

First of all "good" is such an abstract term?
I can argue that "good" does exist outside of human species. I think it's even easier to argue that objective good does exist if you use wild animals as an example.
For human beings, our conscience governs us to do "good" things. However conscience is acquired, it is the creation of education. Our conscience is shaped by our society. Therefore our judgement of "good" is subjective.
For animals, doing "good" things can simply mean taking care of the young, sharing food with every member of the pack. Obviously animals don't have conscience, their sense of doing "good" is innate.