During the Socratic Seminar today, the inner circle discussed many topics, and the discussion got very heated. In my blog, I wanted to focus on one topic that captured my intrigue. I was very interested in the discussion of what good is. Some of my peers believed that there is a universal good, while others vetoed the thought, and stated that good is different all around. I believe the latter.
Sam Hefter made a great argument; he stated that good in the Middle East is extremely different from here in the United States. A murderer in the United States could be considered a prophet in the Middle East, but here is a man qualified for the death penalty. This demonstrated the difference of good throughout our world. If there are more worlds, good could be even more stretched from our belief. Therefore, good is universal, but the definition of good varies throughout societies. Your actual definition of good is found in your experiences with the words and the feeling. Good is completely dependent on the way you are brought up. Overall, good does exist but is different all around, and we can not judge a person based on their definition of good.
Just to throw a wrench in your gears... because why not ;)
ReplyDeleteMany who argue for an objective standpoint (those that belief there is an underlying essential Truth -- with a capital T) out there claim that subjectivity does not necessarily denounce the existence of that Truth. Meaning, just because we can't agree on it as humans, doesn't mean it isn't actually there. It just means some people are right, and some people are wrong.
Yeah I know, easier said than done sort thing, because the problem still lies in it: so how do we figure out who is wrong? None of us are outside the bounds of human limitation ever enough to figure it out, and that's why subjectivity is the philosophy it is. There is no standard or backdrop that we can get at to prove otherwise, so we might as well say it doesn't exist, right?
Well, personally I think the concept of awareness and empathy helps us get closer to that objective backdrop, and in assuming as many people's positions as possible (though obviously limited to the second-hand) we can get close enough to make more educated guesses about the nature of the objective Truth.
I don't know, just rambling. Hopefully there is something valuable in all that, that you can take out of it ;)