What makes something inherently good?

[CarlinKnew]

If no one considered something to be good, could it still be inherently good? How could that be determined?

 

[.lava]

If no one considered something to be good, could it still be inherently good? How could that be determined?

it could be determined by the meaning hidden behind it. i don't mean the intention though. if our physical reality had a reflection in meanings which i believe there is, then it would be possible. like an act that appears to be bad. if we could see the meaning behind that act, we could realize, in case that act wasn't offered, there would be real evil instead. when we're able to compare what happened and what would have happened without what actually happened, we would be able to see if it was trully good or bad

.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

If no one considered something to be good, could it still be inherently good? How could that be determined?

No thing can be inherently good as all things require the dissolution of other things to exist. The most a thing can do is strive towards goodness by causing the least amount of harm to other things while contributing to the order of creation.

 

[thedope]

Reality is non local, nor is it remote. What is not real does not exist. The world is not valuable for what it has to offer. We give the world all the meaning it has for us.
To call a thing pleasant or not, or good or not, is wholly an arbitrary choice that an individual makes, not a measure of reality. The more salient question addressing the op's purpose is, "is it true," or, "is it real."

 

[Riverwolf]

Nothing. From what I've seen, there's no such thing as inherent good or inherent evil (morally speaking.) These are man-made things.

 

[Penumbra]

I don't see how anything can be inherently good. Things can be good relative to one's goal, but goals are fairly arbitrary.

 

[Willamena]

What makes something inherently good?
If no one considered something to be good, could it still be inherently good? How could that be determined?

Something inherent exists as an essential characteristic of a thing. If characteristics are recognized as a product of observation then every essential characteristic of a thing, including "good", can be considered to be inherent.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Something inherent exists as an essential characteristic of a thing. If characteristics are recognized as a product of observation then every essential characteristic of a thing, including "good", can be considered to be inherent.

Is goodness an essential characteristic of a thing that can be observed?

 

[Engyo]

If no one considered something to be good, could it still be inherently good? How could that be determined?

Good and bad are both value judgements. As such, they depend on the viewpoint of the one doing the judging. The same thing that is good for one may be bad for another.

This relates to the Buddhist principle of dependent co-arising. Nothing exists completely in and of itself; all is dependent on relationships with other things and events. All things change, and the relationships between them change.

 

[Midnight Pete]

If something is inherently good, it is because it is inherently good.

Inherent goodness = Inherent goodness

 

[Engyo]

If something is inherently good, it is because it is inherently good.

Inherent goodness = Inherent goodness

If this is true, who gets to decide?

 

[sandandfoam]

If this is true, who gets to decide?

I agree with you - goodness is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Midnight Pete]

If this is true, who gets to decide?

No one has to decide. It's completely self-evident when inherent goodness is inherently good. Inherent goodness is self-evident. If you don't believe me, go out into the world and find out for yourself.

 

[blackout]

I'm thinking that things can only be relationally good.
ie, this is good in relationship to that.

If something necessarily inherent to that relationship is "good"
then it will be an inherent good,
as long as that relationship exists as it is.

 

[Zadok]

Nothing. From what I've seen, there's no such thing as inherent good or inherent evil (morally speaking.) These are man-made things.

So your understanding of any problem with good and evil (friend or foe) is strictly of your own making?

Zadok

 

[Zadok]

I'm thinking that things can only be relationally good.
ie, this is good in relationship to that.

If something necessarily inherent to that relationship is "good"
then it will be an inherent good,
as long as that relationship exists as it is.

So all you have to do is change your attitude and everything is good for you at that time?

Zadok

 

[Zadok]

I agree with you - goodness is in the eye of the beholder.

So your G-d is only good when you think them so?

Zadok.

 

[Zadok]

I don't see how anything can be inherently good. Things can be good relative to one's goal, but goals are fairly arbitrary.

So one's goals are never districtive to one's self?

Zadok

 

[Willamena]

Is goodness an essential characteristic of a thing that can be observed?

That's the relevant question.

Depends on how people define "good." For instance, if charity is helping someone across the street, giving out platters at a food bank, and donating to relief funds, and if those things are "good", then good has been observed in the very act of charity.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

If no one considered something to be good, could it still be inherently good? How could that be determined?

Just to add to the discussion and using a metaphor first. Using the exactness of a square we can get some insight to the problems raised by the OP.
There is an exact meaning to a square. A shape where all four corners are equal and all sides are equal.
Now supposing we extend one side substantially on one square, and then on another square we round all four corners just a bit.
If we examine those incorrect squares against a perect square we ought to be in a position to say whether one shape is closer to being a square than the other. This of course can only be done if we have the standard of the perfect square to compare them too.

So it can be said if there is no Goodness independent of our whims, likes and dislikes, calling something good means nothing at all. No more than calling one of our shapes a square if in fact we knew not what a square was.
In order to answer for the OP we must either decide we have this standard or we don't, but deciding too lightly just on a whim is simply child's play.