The Nature of Good & Bad: Ethical Motivation & Results

Ethics, a topic that has confused and confounded philosophers for countless centuries; from relativist and subjectivist views to ethical realism and intuitionism no single theory about the nature of ethics has ever stood the criticisms of the philosophical community for any significant length of time. It is my intention in this paper to present what I consider to be an adequate explanation of the nature of Good & Bad, as ethical principles and to discuss their roles in; motivating actions, and determining whether those actions are right or wrong. My thesis that Good & Bad are real things, external to our own minds and are present in the world, comes from three primary intuitions. First that the language we use to talk about ethics is indicative of their true nature. Second that the dilemmas presented in other schools of thought and the seeming inconsistency of ethical reasoning is not indicative of a lack of justification for believing that ethical truths exist; but is evidence of human error in the conceptualization of those ethical truths. Thirdly; that ethics, ethical truths and the nature of ethics are separate and distinct from (though intimately connected to) morality and moral truths. To begin my discussion, I will first define the terms I will be using throughout the paper. The definition section will be quite lengthy, so I will endeavor to incorporate my arguments into the definitions themselves. First if good & bad exist, then by their nature they must not be properties, but they must encompass entire states of affairs, events and things. Right and Wrong are ways in which we perform actions; e.g., there is a right way, and a wrong way. Ought and ought not, are imperatives, expressions of motivation toward a Right or Wrong action. So if good and bad are not properties, but instead encompass entire states of affairs what are they? They must be viewed as moral principles (not morals), as driving forces behind conscious action. As Plato said, in reference to the form of the Good; knowledge of it must provide both direction towards a goal and motivation to achieve that goal (which is further good). By necessity from definition then, the Bad, must do the opposite; knowledge of it must provide both direction away from and motivation to avoid further badness. What two things perform such a function? Benefit and Harm. Good for any ethical situation or problematic, the good option universally is one which provides a benefit, conversely the bad option results in harm befalling the participants. I wish to avoid a deep discussion over the nature of what is beneficial and harmful, so I will endeavor to keep their definitions concise. That which benefits is that which creates pleasure itself (the sensation) or one of the pleasurable emotions such as; happiness, contentment, satisfaction, ease etc. That which harms is that which

creates pain itself (the sensation), or one of the painful emotions such as; sadness, anger, jealousy, resentment etc. In order to participate in ethical appreciation, a creature must be; living, capable of experiencing both pain & pleasure (the sensations) and at a minimum be able to conceive of what benefits and harms itself regardless of how primitive such a conception might be. In short this allows for Humans, most mammals and some avian and amphibian creatures to participate in ethical appreciation, that is to seek good things and avoid bad things. We are incapable of directly seeking Good or Bad things what we do is seek benefit or harm and in so doing the states of affairs which our actions bring about generate goodness and badness. That said Good & Bad are necessarily the results of our endeavors to gain benefit or create harm. It follows then that states of affairs which result in zero benefit or harm are neither good nor bad in nature. The moving of a coffee cup, from one end of the cupboard to the other, is an example of such an action. Good then, which is that result of an action that creates benefit, is the opposite of bad. This I wish to make note, is the Ethical Good, not to be confused with Moral Good. The difference lies in that ethical goodness concerns itself with the results of actions and the benefit that comes from them; while moral good concerns itself with intentions and purposes behind those actions. Moral good is the opposite of Evil. As I have said, Good & Bad are the resultants of actions which produce either a beneficial change or harmful change in a state of affairs. Whenever something beneficial or harmful occurs, something Good or Bad can be said to have occurred. The actions which cause these results can be performed in a Right or Wrong way (as well as a neutral fashion). Good results can indeed come from wrong actions, just as bad results can come from right actions. This is because Right and Wrong, by their nature, are in the domain of morality and concern themselves with intentions, not results. This is where it can start to get confusing and my argument for the nature of ethical principles truly begins to show clarity. We can have good and bad reasons for performing any given action, the way in which we perform that action can be either right, wrong or morally neutral. The action itself will produce a change in the status quo, that is either beneficial, harmful or neither. If the result is beneficial or harmful, then something Good or Bad has actually occurred. How is this so, and what is the difference between a Good and Bad result and their respective reasons. All reasons come from normative factors, which are solely internal to our own minds. These normative factors are our preferences, desires and emotions. They are one component in a mental process (called reasoning) which enables us to determine how best to alter a state of affairs for our benefit and if altering the state is even worth the effort on balance, to continuing the status quo. The other component to the reasoning process is our beliefs, which are about factual matter

concerning the physical world. Such constitutes a reason which may be either good or bad in virtue of the nature of the desired change. If a man desires to get some food to eat, by the very nature of the desire to eat food which is an action typically beneficial to the body, the result will be necessarily good or bad. By this desire, or purpose for the intended action, which necessarily produces a good or bad result, the reason itself may be said to be good or bad. This intention behind the purpose for desiring such a change is the crux upon which all matters of ethical confusion lay. The form of the action, which is determined by the intent it is based upon is what makes ethical values and decisions appear to be so inconsistent with logical analyses. Up until this point, we assume that the reasoning process both motivates and determines solely the course of action that we take regarding ethical positions. This is a misconception, lead to by a prolonged series of uncorrected human errors. Through a proper understanding of what constitutes a right or wrong action, we can come to understand how it is that a right or wrong action can produce a good or bad result, independent of which precedes what. This ability for good and bad results to come from right and wrong actions is what has confused philosophers for centuries. Allow me to elucidate the full process. There are two sets of intentions, set one (Set-1) which consists of all those internal normative factors which revolve around self-satisfaction, typically though not exclusively at said others expense. This set of intentions exclusively, by the nature of rightness universally leads to wrong actions. Thus any action performed under such an intention will be morally wrong, though this does not preclude goodness from the result merely that the way in which it is achieved will be dubious. The second set, set two (Set-2) which conversely consists in all those internal normative factors which revolve around a philanthropic ideal, though this ideal doesnt exclude all thoughts of self-promotion. This set of intentions exclusively, by the nature of rightness universally leads to right actions. Thus any action performed under such an intention will be morally right, though this does not preclude badness from the result merely that the way in which it is brought about will be right. This by itself does not appease the confusion there is still one more consideration to undertake before the completeness of ethical action can be understood properly. But for the moment, we can observe that it is possible for a Wrong action, done for a Good reason, to result in a state of affairs that produces a beneficial change, which when experienced by living creatures capable of understanding pain & pleasure (likely humans), will produce an emotional response of 'Happiness'. This is a Good State of Affairs and thus a good thing. Though I should note that not all real results of changes to the states of affairs necessarily result in good things happening even if the results are beneficial. Let me explain, and thereby add the final component to the understanding of ethical action.

For a result to truly be considered good or bad, it must be weighed in the intuition of those experiencing it. Ethical weight consists in what is actually two separate value systems; one which I term the moral system and the other the utility system. Under the utility system, a result is weighed according to the amount of benefit which each participant gained, minus the amount of harm that befell each same participant. This net benefit is the utility weight and is the mark of whether the result is truly Good or Bad. The other system, the moral system, concerns itself with the action itself. The net utility must be multiplied by either a positive single integer, or a negative one; positive denotes right action (good reasons) and the negative denotes wrong action (bad intention). Thus even if a Good result on the utility system, was resultant from wrong actions they moral system will weigh the entire result as morally wrong or evil. This may at first seem difficult to grasp, but upon reflection the equations do allow for every possible ethical and moral opinion to be made. It also allows for the phrase the ends justify the means to be true, under the context of utility, but false under the context of morality; just as some people agree and disagree with that sentiment in life. Thus I can say and feel justified in concluding that Good and Bad (ethically speaking) are the sum of the events and states of affairs of the external world. Which then also means that Good and Bad themselves are external to my mind and therefore exist independent of my mind. Though indeed there is one serious criticism which one may make against my complete ethical action construction. That if Good and Bad are truly independent of my mind, then why is it that only through the intuitions of ethically appreciative creatures is a result found to be so? Would such a dependency on the minds of creatures be counter indicative of their external validity? This effectively is a positivist counter to my position, and it undermines the nature of what Good and Bad are. They are the results of changes to the states of affairs which concern living creatures. Were there no living creatures good and bad would continue to exist, but be inactive. Much in the same way as a tree falling in the forest, with no one around to hear would still create a change in air pressure which would just go unperceived by a living creature, the air pressure still changed; sound is the change. So if living creatures did not exist, but the tectonic plates shifted in such a way to make the climate more hospitable to life were it to exist that change would still be a good result, just as sound would still occur without an ear to hear it. Therefore I refute the positivist counter, and remain concluded that Good and Bad are real, external to my mind.