The Greater Good

[saysmydoctor]

How do we achieve the so-called 'greater good' and can it be done in a way seen as being morally acceptable?

I've been reading Machiavelli again. Hence why I ask.

[GeeBee]

Much like the Bible, the term "greater good" can be bent to serve any agenda, and is thus not a cognitively meaningful concept.

[Battle Hymns]

Hot Fuzz

[rawesome]

Wouldn't you need to define "morally acceptable" first?

[loveisdead]

Utilitarianism is a stupid concept that sacrifices a lot for a lot of people.

[rawesome]

Utilitarianism is a stupid concept that sacrifices a lot for a lot of people.
What's your issue with it? (not trying to be a dick, I always feel like I sound really harsh over the internet)

[loveisdead]

What's your issue with it? (not trying to be a dick, I always feel like I sound really harsh over the internet)
Because people's idea of the greater good is almost always selfish. If they were to sacrifice, then they'd be hurting themselves and convince themselves that it can't possibly be the greatest good. I realize it's a shady explanation, but maybe you see what I'm talking about. I'm a far more altruistic.

[GeeBee]

Hot Fuzz
:lol:
Just watched on Comedy Central yesterday!

[EvilZeppelin]

How do we achieve the so-called 'greater good' and can it be done in a way seen as being morally acceptable?

I've been reading Machiavelli again. Hence why I ask.

by IP banning anamericangawd, waldorf, fullblast...

[loveisdead]

It can't be done in a morally acceptable way. We can't do it. Everyone's idea of what good for the greatest amount of people is too different. Is a homeless person robbing a bank/rich person for the greatest good? Yeah. Is it morally acceptable? Absolutely not.

The counter would be every bank/rich person donating enough money to the poor that they wouldn't have to worry about being robbed. But that'll never happen.

[rawesome]

Because people's idea of the greater good is almost always selfish. If they were to sacrifice, then they'd be hurting themselves and convince themselves that it can't possibly be the greatest good. I realize it's a shady explanation, but maybe you see what I'm talking about. I'm a far more altruistic.
Now, I've always seen it the same way but backwards. People see the "greater good" as a means of putting themselves "second" or whatever term you choose to use, and that creates an uneasiness in some because they are afraid they won't be taken care of in the end.

However, I agree with you, I feel I'm pretty altruistic (though sometimes I find myself to be very selfish, disgustingly so), but I would not be comfortable being rich and powerful knowing that others are not. Where I'm at, I can be satisfied and happy in my life without others having to sacrifice to make it so, and would prefer a world where everyone is provided with the basic necessities. This, though, as you said, is technically a selfish wish.

I always felt George Bernard Shaw made a good point when he exposed the hypocrisy in the fact that we consider poverty to be an evil, but still continue to let it happen. We provide for the poor with soup kitchens and clothing donations, but we don't really do anything to try and change their situation and continue to let society essentially ass rape them of their dignity.

Sorry, I'm doing homework while I surf this board, so I just realized these thoughts are a bit askew.

[loveisdead]

Now, I've always seen it the same way but backwards. People see the "greater good" as a means of putting themselves "second" or whatever term you choose to use, and that creates an uneasiness in some because they are afraid they won't be taken care of in the end.
I hope most people see it that way. But if it were the case, wouldn't there be a lot more people sacrificing? I dunno, I think the proof is in the pudding.
However, I agree with you, I feel I'm pretty altruistic (though sometimes I find myself to be very selfish, disgustingly so), but I would not be comfortable being rich and powerful knowing that others are not. Where I'm at, I can be satisfied and happy in my life without others having to sacrifice to make it so, and would prefer a world where everyone is provided with the basic necessities. This, though, as you said, is technically a selfish wish.
Exactly. There are few people in the world that are altruistic. Even what you spoke of above, is not altruistic since people only sacrifice in hopes that they are rewarded in the end (by God/fate/the lotto/whothefuckknowswhat).
I always felt George Bernard Shaw made a good point when he exposed the hypocrisy in the fact that we consider poverty to be an evil, but still continue to let it happen. We provide for the poor with soup kitchens and clothing donations, but we don't really do anything to try and change their situation and continue to let society essentially ass rape them of their dignity.
Yes sir. The greatest good, in some ways, would require a marxist society.

Sorry, I'm doing homework while I surf this board, so I just realized these thoughts are a bit askew.
Yeah i'm not putting entirely too much thought into this either. I took an ethics class my last semester of college and all of this was discussed so I figured I'd take part in the discussion.

[rawesome]

I hope most people see it that way. But if it were the case, wouldn't there be a lot more people sacrificing? I dunno, I think the proof is in the pudding.

Exactly. There are few people in the world that are altruistic. Even what you spoke of above, is not altruistic since people only sacrifice in hopes that they are rewarded in the end (by God/fate/the lotto/whothefuckknowswhat).

Yes sir. The greatest good, in some ways, would require a marxist society.


Yeah i'm not putting entirely too much thought into this either. I took an ethics class my last semester of college and all of this was discussed so I figured I'd take part in the discussion.
To me, this is a just a personal comfort/clear conscious type of deal. Still a reward, though, totally.

[Sventhegreat]

Much like the Bible, the term "greater good" can be bent to serve any agenda, and is thus not a cognitively meaningful concept.

This is what it boils down to, whether people can accept that or not.

[loveisdead]

Much like the Bible, the term "greater good" can be bent to serve any agenda, and is thus not a cognitively meaningful concept.
That's a great way to put it.

[jwicklun]

the ends do not justify the means.

[saysmydoctor]

Wouldn't you need to define "morally acceptable" first?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

[MyNameIsRoss]

Hot Fuzz

hf

[Smash Adams]

Why does there need to be a greatest good? I think it's better to allocate resources and help in anyway you can, or more aptly feel comfortable doing

[rawesome]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism
Cool story, bro, but you still need to decide how and why certain things would be considered moral or amoral.

[SanePsychotic]

Am I the only one who immediately thought of Albus Dumbledore in the Deathly Hallows when first reading the thread title? :-d