charlie@cca.UUCP (06/29/83)
When trying to define "good", I believe most people examine a large set of situations which they have either experienced or considered for which they have "gut reactions" as to what was good and what was bad (evil). They then try to abstract to general rules from the situations. Finally, they "test" the general rules by applying them to other situations and make sure the rules agree with their "gut reactions" in those. This is the classic scientific method. By and large, people agree about what is good in most situations. They even agree on many general rules. They may come to think of these rules as what good really is; that they have an "absolute value system". The problem occurs when someone (or even everyone) finds that the rules disagree with "gut reaction" in some situation. There are then several choices. If a non-powerful group disagrees, it can be forced into line by social forces. If a powerful group disagrees, you can change the rules (as the scientific method would prescribe), reinterpret the rules (which is actually the same thing), or you can denounce the rules and claim that all that really exists is gut reaction (situational ethics). There is nothing inconsistent about denouncing rules. Some claim that the universe is as it is and natural laws are simply convenient approximations. A similar claim can be made in ethics. Both have the problem that they are unproductive. Whether the world is ordered or not, it is undeniably productive to act as though it is. Whether "good" exists independently of our ability to sense it is an interesting philosophical question, but it has no practical importance. In the world, it only makes sense to assume that good is there and to seek it out.