Originally posted by serigado
Correct. What I may consider "good" may not apply to others. That's why we have different countries with different cultures.
"Good" is relative. And that's why saying god is the source of good doesn't make any sense. And saying that not being with god we can't be good even worse.

Actually I would disagree completely with that statement.
For one 'good' and how it is defined is put upon all of us by others,
basically we are told what is good by those that create the laws and
rules we live by, we are told what is good for us, by those that create
the laws and rules for us, even if we don't like those rules if they are
in authority it doesn't matter, those are the laws and rules. This is not
an statement of might makes right since even where we elect those
in power it is still by whatever right they came to power their duty to
govern. Now if you want to suggest that there is a 'good' that does
not come from power, I'd agree with that too, but then where does
it come from if it isn't a matter of power, is it fair play, if so why is
that good? What makes good, good? If is just your taste you can be
put upon by anyone who can, and that is that isn't it?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Actually I would disagree completely with that statement.
For one 'good' and how it is defined is put upon all of us by others,
basically we are told what is good by those that create the laws and
rules we live by, we are told what is good for us, by those that create
the laws and rules for us, even if we don't like those rules if they are
in authority st your taste you can be
put upon by anyone who can, and that is that isn't it?
Kelly

Good is not something that exists outside us. Good is a concept made by men that means something is advantageous to ourselves.
Unfortunately this conceptions collides too many times, because what can be good for one person may be bad to another or conflict with another , so a vaster meaning appeared ("Good" with capital letter): something that is advantageous to everyone. If something makes everyone happy and with a better life, that's good.
There's no "Good" and "Evil". Those are just conception as obsolete as the Aristotle's 4 elements. You can dream about the absolute Good mankind wants to achieve, but that's nothing more then a extrapolation of feelings.
Having lived in society and adapted the laws to what is best to everyone (or trying to) has nothing to do with good itself. It's just how men organized themselves to live the best way possible.

Originally posted by serigado
Good is not something that exists outside us. Good is a concept made by men that means something is advantageous to ourselves.
Unfortunately this conceptions collides too many times, because what can be good for one person may be bad to another of conflict with another , so a vaster meaning appeared ("Good" with capital letter): something that is advantag th good itself. It's just how men organized themselves to live the best way possible.

I'm sorry I didn't follow my conversation with you. I'm not able to post during the week. And I lost the connection with my last post...

Regarding this specific post:

because what can be good for one person may be bad to another of conflict with another , so a vaster meaning appeared ("Good" with capital letter): something that is advantageous to everyone. If something makes everyone happy and with a better life, that's good.

where did you get this definition from? That also doesn't resolve the conflict you are talking about.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I'm sorry I didn't follow my conversation with you. I'm not able to post during the week. And I lost the connection with my last post...

Regarding this specific post:

[b]because what can be good for one person may be bad to another of conflict with another , so a vaster meaning appeared ("Good" with capital letter): something that is advantageous to e u get this definition from? That also doesn't resolve the conflict you are talking about.

No problem! I often get busy too and can't post for a while.

where did you get this definition from? That also doesn't resolve the conflict you are talking about.[/b]
I was just saying what I understand as "good". I have no conflicts. Simply what some people talk about is not coherent with my perspective of the world.
Saying God is the definition of Good, and that without God there can't be any good is one of those "conflicts".

Originally posted by serigado
Good is not something that exists outside us. Good is a concept made by men that means something is advantageous to ourselves.
Unfortunately this conceptions collides too many times, because what can be good for one person may be bad to another or conflict with another , so a vaster meaning appeared ("Good" with capital letter): something that is advantag th good itself. It's just how men organized themselves to live the best way possible.

You are quick to say this, "Good is not something that exists outside
us. Good is a concept made by men..." A foundational belief if I have
ever seen one, you realize of course that you have rejected 'good'
as being just a bunch of personal taste don't you? What is good for
you may not be good for another, in other words, everyone simply
makes up their own minds on what is good and that is that. Sort of
dispels the notion you or anyone else's view is better than anyone
else' view too, since your beliefs starts off with none of us share the
same set of ideals than the next guy. So as that plays out I guess
that makes might makes right or evolutionary view I suppose is the
strong will beat up the weak and there isn't any real rules about this,
it is just 'good' playing out with man as man is. We value this today so
today this is important, we value that tomorrow only that is important,
the ever changing standard of values.

I have a lot of issues with this point of view.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are quick to say this, "Good is not something that exists outside
us. Good is a concept made by men..." A foundational belief if I have
ever seen one, you realize of course that you have rejected 'good'
as being just a bunch of personal taste don't you? What is good for
you may not be good for another, in other words, everyone simply
makes up their ...[text shortened]... changing standard of values.

I have a lot of issues with this point of view.
Kelly

If you are talking about what's good for an individual, you are right. It depends on each one of us and may differ from me to my neighbour. But there's the common good. That was built through experience, during history, sometimes at close with religion, sometimes diverging from it. That good came from our intelligence. From people arriving what conclusion of what was better for them. Through education, is thought to our children, and to protect the ideal we made laws. For the common Good!
Good comes from our intelligence, we define it as we want it. We can't do it individually if we are talking about the common Good. Do you think there's good and evil among animals? They just do what their instinct tells them to survive and to have pleasure. We are a little more, but nothing extraordinary.
Notion of Good is NOT absolute.

Originally posted by serigado
If you are talking about what's good for an individual, you are right. It depends on each one of us and may differ from me to my neighbour. But there's the common good. That was built through experience, during history, sometimes at close with religion, sometimes diverging from it. That good came from our intelligence. From people arriving what conclusion o pleasure. We are a little more, but nothing extraordinary.
Notion of Good is NOT absolute.

You have two different sets of rules here, what is good for the
individual and good for the group, and if I think my individual
needs or desires can only be taken care of as I force the group
into obeying me, that makes it good if I can do it? Before you
dismiss such a tought history has shown that some have pulled
that off, it was good what they did, because they did it? Before
you start worrying about how and what they did, since it must
of been good they got what they wanted, how about groups taking
on individuals, if they can get away with it, that is good, because
they can? Where are the lines of good here, your two sets of good
do not seem to make much sense to me?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have two different sets of rules here, what is good for the
individual and good for the group, and if I think my individual
needs or desires can only be taken care of as I force the group
into obeying me, that makes it good if I can do it? Before you
dismiss such a tought history has shown that some have pulled
that off, it was good what they did, ...[text shortened]... e are the lines of good here, you two sets of good
do not seem to make much sense to me?
Kelly

and if I think my individual needs or desires can only be taken care of as I force the group into obeying me, that makes it good if I can do it?
You are mistaking what you want with what's good for you. In general they are correlated, but they are not the same thing. Forcing or cheating the group into making what you want doesn't make it necessarily good for you.

how about groups taking on individuals, if they can get away if it, that is good, because
they can?
That's what happened through history, with the group of Christians converting by force America and Africa. It was made for your absolute Good, God's Good. Do you think that was "Good" ?
For me there's no ultimate group. Sometimes there's a divergence between groups and something bad happens. Whomever wons gets the right to choose what's good for them. On the long term, these groups have a minor tendency to survive. It's kind of a social evolution.
If you think there's a common absolute "Good" that everyone should convert to, you are very naive.
Good may not be something good 🙂

Originally posted by serigado
[b]and if I think my individual needs or desires can only be taken care of as I force the group into obeying me, that makes it good if I can do it?
You are mistaking what you want with what's good for you. In general they are correlated, but they are not the same thing. Forcing or cheating the group into making what you want doesn't make it necessarily everyone should convert to, you are very naive.
Good may not be something good 🙂[/b]

Wait you said good is as I define didn't you, now you are taking that
away? If it isn't how I define it, who defines what is good for me, the
group? Who gave them that power over right me to say that?

With respect to groups over powering the individual, you cannot find
fault if that is by nature what needs to be done, what will be done,
and the only way it can be done. If there are things more important
than just surviving, if there are things more important than the group,
if there are things more important than the individual, than we have
to go back to the drawing board on what is good, because what you
said is now being rejected by something higher!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Wait you said good is as I define didn't you, now you are taking that
away? If it isn't how I define it, who defines what is good for me, the
group? Who gave them that power over right me to say that?

With respect to groups over powering the individual, you cannot find
fault if that is by nature what needs to be done, what will be done,
and the only ...[text shortened]... oard on what is good, because what you
said is now being rejected by something higher!
Kelly

I wouldn't call it the group. I'd call it society. You can have your personal opinion of what if best for you or the society and debate it. If you disagree, you are free to leave. Or you can live as an hermit. Or live in some religious community. Some place where the people around you have the same opinions of what good is.

Everything is always debatable. Let's go to the drawing board. What is good afterall? Who's standing higher that rejected by notion of good? (please don't tell me it's god)...

Originally posted by serigado
I wouldn't call it the group. I'd call it society. You can have your personal opinion of what if best for you or the society and debate it. If you disagree, you are free to leave. Or you can live as an hermit. Or live in some religious community. Some place where the people around you have the same opinions of what good is.

Everything is always debatable Who's standing higher that rejected by notion of good? (please don't tell me it's god)...

Odd, love it or leave it is your answer.
You can call your group society or the 'gang' or anything you want, it
does not change you have two or more different sets of good floating
aorund. You actually do not seem to think any of them really matter
either as I go through your responces, since nothing binds us together
unless we agree it seems, if we do not agree I guess we are either
asked to leave or the group, whatever you want to name it, does what
it likes at the moment to those that disagree. Sounds like might
makes right to me, which I do again disagree with, since I do not
accept because I have the power to do something that makes it
automatically good that I do it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Odd, love it or leave it is your answer.
You can call your group society or the 'gang' or anything you want, it
does not change you have two or more different sets of good floating
aorund. You actually do not seem to think any of them really matter
either as I go through your responces, since nothing binds us together
unless we agree it seems, if we do ...[text shortened]... ecause I have the power to do something that makes it
automatically good that I do it.
Kelly

Not two different set of good, but Many different sets.
And about your "Good", how much bad had it brought to us? Isn't it also defined by might, in this case, "all mighty god"? I can see many flaws in "god's good", some that I exposed earlier, but you say "you are not a god to say what's good, how can a mortal understand perfection?".
You have also no reason to prefer your good provided by God.
Only the long run will provide us an answer. And truth is, everyday more people are starting to think by themselves and leave gods behind. Why? Because they're no good.

Originally posted by serigado
Not two different set of good, but Many different sets.
And about your "Good", how much bad had it brought to us? Isn't it also defined by might, in this case, "all mighty god"? I can see many flaws in "god's good", some that I exposed earlier, but you say "you are not a god to say what's good, how can a mortal understand perfection?".
You have also no re ...[text shortened]... starting to think by themselves and leave gods behind. Why? Because they're no good.

There isn’t any over riding ‘good’ that binds them all together making
them all work together is my question to you? If that is the case I do
believe you can have evil or bad either they would also have to be
just mind sets like good. Nothing could really be evil everywhere at all
times evil would have the same limitation you have put on good,
there wouldn’t be anything that cuts across all of the many variety of
different views of good that is evil everywhere. So when you dislike
something like the death penalty it is just a matter of your personal
taste nothing more, since saying it isn’t right to do that requires a
standard of good and bad that is big enough to hold us all to not just
your personal opinion.
Kelly