I want to get to the bottom of the whole concept of what is “good,” but I fear that it may just be far too broad. Still, I cannot help but want to arrive at some sort of conclusion. So here it goes.
Aristotle’s discussion of what constitutes good in Nicomachean Ethics really caught my attention.
Aristotle also respectably acknowledges the difficulty of assigning what constitutes "good." I mean, with a term so subjective, how can the full range of perspectives of what good is be made into one unified and concrete idea? How in the world can there even be a unanimous agreement of what good really is? My thought: Perhaps there just can't. What I might find to be "good" might be the same thing another indivudual would find to be absolutely terrible, and vice versa. Still, as a reader of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics I feel I am being challenged to try harder yet to ponder what "good" could be.
Aristotle points to another idea that I really can stand behind. His essay leads me to believe that "good" can be found in many different things. I took this to mean that there can be good in almost anything. Take, for example, Communism. Yes, I know I am getting into some pretty deep and touchy subject matter, but for some reason I am failing to think of another analogy at the moment. So, Communism to one person may be "good." This individual may agree with the principles that lead a Communist way of life, etc. Another individual may stand at the opposite end. This individual may find Communism absolutely bad. The way I am thinking of to explain this disconnect from one person to another is this: "Good" is a highly individualized word as a result of the broad range of different natures and opinions in this world.
And there it is. For me, in order to make my mind stop reeling a bit over this complex concept, that is the conclusion. "Good" is not one concept. It is many. It is subjective, it is not unanimous, and the bottom line is this: What makes something "good" is simply a matter of opinion. What's yours?
5 comments:
I'm going to roll with the idea of perspectives. When thinking in terms of the individual, the idea of a "supreme good" is almost laughable. I agree with Aristotle in that we all strive for "Happiness"; Happiness capitalized because arguably it's the "supreme good" to which Aristotle refers. I suppose the real question is What is happiness?
I can tell you what makes me happy. I just watched Matt Barnes botch a slam dunk and the ball ricocheted into the crowd. That was funny. I find happiness in that because it made me giggle. But if you don't know anything about the NBA your emotional and physical reaction to the spectacle would be complete indifference. Likewise, if you love the Laker's, you don't want to see Matt Barnes blowing a dunk at the start of a game.
I digress. I want to go back to perspectives because the idea of the individual's perspective on happiness and "good" has more plausibility than any "Supreme Good." I'm quoting a comedian's bit. A pat on the back if anyone can guess to whom I'm referring. Take the optimistic phrase: The glass is always half full. I'll buy that. Here's where perspective becomes relevant. Full of what? If it's milk, sure. I like milk. That makes me happy. What about poison? Suddenly, I don't think that glass is half full anymore. It's half empty. It's all relative. So optimism, happiness, the "supreme good,"--all is unique to the individual, and you can't group an individual because we're all too different.
I think it's really interesting that you chose to write about Aristotle's conception of "good," Lauren, because I actually just posted about something similar, then journeyed backwards to read your thoughts. In a nutshell, my assessment was that Aristotle means to imply that what is "good" yields some beneficial consequence. It is not some highly elaborate, divine concept, but it is a selfish thing. I know this is strange, because selfishness is not generally associated with goodness. However, I see Aristotle saying "what is good will show itself to be good by yielding a good outcome."
I discussed the idea in a bit more detail, but I think my post also suggests (although I didn't think much of it until reading yours) that what is "good" is not necessarily an individual opinion, but relative to a society. From whence to we derive our notions of right and wrong, good and bad? Are they innate? I don't think so. Rather, I think different groups of people have different interpretations of good and bad. The individual is only so progressive a thinker. One requires a starting line to run from in order to establish personal opinions. And this start line is set by the social norms. Only from there can they begin to "think outside the box." So bringing it all back in, what is "good" is defined by the group's standards, and and those entertaining "individualistic thought" are simply trying to push the boundary of the "gray area."
And sidenote- I really liked the glass of milk analogy...it really impressed me.
Aristotle came the conclusion that everything "seems to aim at some good" without taking any logical steps other than applying common knowledge (3). We haven't really been asking what good means to Aristotle and just applying what good means to us. In our society, good and bad seem to function as a binary. For Aristotle, it seems to function more as a sliding scale. He thinks all things migrate toward the good end of the scale, reaching for the supreme good. I agree with him up until he labels that supreme good to be happiness.
I'm very curious as to how Aristotle pictures a world where everything has reached the supreme good. Does he even believe that is possible? Here's why I ask: Happiness is an individual experience, as we've already discussed, but I also see it as a selfish one. Now don't put the word 'selfish' into the good/bad binary: place it on the scale. 'Selfish' wouldn't be all the way at the bad end. Lots of good things happen because people are selfish (like survival). But, it certainly isn't the supreme good since selfishness leads to poverty.
The only way to avoid this conclusion of 'selfish' is to find one thing that makes everyone happy in the same way--but isn't that impossible since Aristotle already established that happiness means something different and is experienced differently by everyone?
Let me first say, Rachel- My mind is a little blown. Prior to reading your comment on my post, I was focusing primarily on individual concepts of good. After reading your post, I must agree with the idea that society is a factor. But I want to take it a little further.
So, since the beginning of our lives, we have been developing. Our concepts of good, bad, etc. have all been changing, and as a matter of fact, we have been changing as people.
Also, as we mature, we learn to think of things as good that we perhaps previously hated. For example, as a child I loathed wheat pasta. I hated the taste, hated the way my mom told me that I needed to eat it because it was good for me. You know. Anyway, nowadays, I only eat wheat pasta. Why? Because over time, my idea of good has changed. As I have matured, what is "good" for me (as in beneficial/healthy) has come to trump what is "good" in the moment. That is not to say that I do not ever have my short-comings. I mean, what girl doesn't medicate with chocolate? But my point is that what I think of as good has matured as I have matured.
I think that part of this maturity that we come by is because of society. Society tells us that certain things are good, while others are not. It also tells us that our concepts of good and bad should mature as we do. This is where I think society dictates our ideas a bit. I mean, if society were totally pro-white pasta and very anti-wheat, would I stray from the norm? Maybe. But I would feel some cognitive dissonance. I would want to fit in with the norm, even if my idea of good clashed a bit with society's.
Sometimes this happens to me, as I would expect it to happen to everyone. We want to be like our peers. If you disagree, then tell me this: Do you really like North Face? Would leggings and wellies appeal to you if they were "so last year?" I think not. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe your good and my good clash, and maybe your concept of society and my concept of society are in utter conflict. Oh, how dissonant.
P.S- I also really dig the milk analogy. I enjoyed your perspective.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.