What makes something inherently good?

[Midnight Pete]

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.

We're talking about defining basic morality, aren't we? Okay. I think we can all agree that Goodness has a source or substrate but probably not on what that substrate is. Without a source or substrate for Goodness, Evil can't be said to exist. Just as "Up" requires a "Down" and "Big" requires a "Small."

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Now for me personally I find nothing inherently good at all in the universe. I only find God is inherently good, or better said is the exactness of Goodness.

Take even the idea "for the sake of humanity" can be incredibly callous. If we focus on humanity without justice we would find court proceedings where documents might be changed and outcomes altered for humanities sake, but then of course chaos would incur. So nothing besides a perfect Goodness can be inherently good.
This is where my understanding is at today, subject to change

 

[Just_me_Mike]

We're talking about defining basic morality, aren't we? Okay. I think we can all agree that Goodness has a source or substrate but probably not on what that substrate is. Without a source or substrate for Goodness, Evil can't be said to exist. Just as "Up" requires a "Down" and "Big" requires a "Small."

And to many defining good as absolute does not fit their world view. The extreme would be Nietzsche. Which is always an option.

 

[Engyo]

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.

Self-evident to you does not equal self-evident to me, necessarily. Do you think that everyone shares your judgement of everything?

 

[Midnight Pete]

And to many defining good as absolute does not fit their world view. The extreme would be Nietzsche. Which is always an option.

There are degrees of goodness, of course. I don't intend to paint the whole world as starkly Good or Bad with nothing in between. I believe that there are some absolutes, just not that everything is one thing or the other.

The platypus, for example. An egg-laying mammal with a duck's bill.

 

[Engyo]

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

Zadok.

Don't have one, so a moot question.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

There are degrees of goodness, of course. I don't intend to paint the whole world as starkly Good or Bad with nothing in between. I believe that there are some absolutes, just not that everything is one thing or the other.

The platypus, for example. An egg-laying mammal with a duck's bill.

Understanding goodness as degrees is only going to lead you to a problem. By denoting degrees you give merit to the individual degree. In my above example about a square, something is either a square or it isn't, no debate needed. If something is almost a square it wouldn't be thought of as a degree of a square. If it helps, you might say it is more closer to a square, or displaying characteristics of a square.

So if you see good in something, there is no degree of goodness, it is either good or it is not in relation to the part you are calling good. Example, Hitler fed his child breakfast. Which that act was good. However Hitler was not overall good.

This of course is one world view and is dependent on there being an independent absolute good that we can compare too.

 

[Engyo]

Example, Hitler fed his child breakfast. Which that act was good. However Hitler was not overall good.

This of course is one world view and is dependent on there being an independent absolute good that we can compare too.

I wonder how the chicken who provided the eggs and the pig that provided the bacon for that breakfast felt about it? Somehow I don't think they would find it quite so good.

Now if we are only talking about human viewpoints, that needs to be clarified.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I wonder how the chicken who provided the eggs and the pig that provided the bacon for that breakfast felt about it? Somehow I don't think they would find it quite so good.

Now if we are only talking about human viewpoints, that needs to be clarified.

I already did clarify in part, I said that nothing is inherently good, for all intents and purposes for what you just pointed out. Correct?
Which is why I said if goodness does exist it can only be as an absolute, outside and apart from our universe where everything is relative.

 

[Willamena]

I already did clarify in part, I said that nothing is inherently good, for all intents and purposes for what you just pointed out. Correct?
Which is why I said if goodness does exist it can only be as an absolute, outside and apart from our universe where everything is relative.

With the image of "outside," and ostensibly "inside," you've just made the "absolute" "apart from our universe" relative to "where everything is relative."

 

[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.

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

Zadok

Sometimes, sure.
(though I'm not sure why you focused on this idea? )

Some things like the relationship of food to the body
cannot be entirely changed by attitude
in that some foods are "good" for the body
and others aren't.
As well if you like living in your body,
it's generally a "good" idea to feed it.

 

[logician]

Good and bad are relative terms, to the societal norms and mores. There is nothing inherent about it.