The Atheist Experience

The Atheist Experience Aug 13, 2018 20:59:36 GMT

Quote

Post by Arlon10 on Aug 13, 2018 20:59:36 GMT

Aug 13, 2018 13:17:41 GMT FilmFlaneur said:

<1,2,3>

1) ... I give a broad [definition] below ... I have not been discussing science ...

You have not been discussing logic either.

2) [Word salad alert!] The concept of good denotes that conduct which is to be, or should be, preferred or approved of when posed with a choice between a set of possible actions, and is the opposite of evil. Most good will refer to the greatest benefit, especially to all. Dictionaries and philosophical encylopedias are, typically, replete with definitions of the word.

   Dictionaries provide synonyms; favorable, attractive, suitable, preferred, approved et cetera and antonyms; evil, bad, et cetera, none of which are any use in establishing whether any specific object (insects, goats) or event (rain, winds) is good. Curiously "diseased" as an antonym of good does derive from nature, is found in dictionaries, and there is no such thing as the "fallacy" you imagine.

   The greatest good for the greatest number is likewise no use in establishing whether any specific object or event is good. In its utter simplicity it is argumentum ad populum which is known to be fallacious in most matters of religion and science, if not politics. If you have 400 people in a room you could have 400 different notions of what is the greatest good for the greatest number. That is much like your other totally useless definition of "gnostic."

   You are not connecting to reality. A definition, to have any value, must connect to reality since that is the only way it is "right." It cannot be "right" while disconnected from reality like "gnostic" or "what most people think."

   Because of your extreme simplicity you might imagine you have answers in extremely simple formulations. You do not. In a room of 400 people, 395 of them would probably recommend "the greatest good for the greatest number,' and yet have 395 different ideas what that is.

3) the standing observation that nature cannot, logically speaking, be used to provide an example of 'good'

   You have not been at all logical in providing any other basis than nature for good. You're like a small child who defines "good" as "what people like." That is not a definition connecting to anything in reality. It is merely a different set of words.

   You have no definition. You have employed "fallacies" (ad populum) yourself in trying to find a definition.

   Many years ago many people did not understand "ecology." Older people can remember when there was no such term. Today we have the term and we know how interdependent our lives are on the other living things in our "ecosystem." It is essential that our policies and ethics are sculpted to live in harmony with nature. If you do not understand that you are severely mentally retarded. The "greatest good for the greatest number" (as I see that) indeed demands that we consider nature in defining good. Obviously some things in nature can be "bad" in the immediate, like lightning. That can mean that we be careful what lessons we take from nature, that is all.

   The so called "fallacy of nature" simply means that some things in nature are bad in the immediate and no definition exists outside our mutual and arbitrary efforts to form a definition. It does not and cannot forbid learning from nature what is good.