Goodness and BadnessEssay Preview: Goodness and BadnessReport this essayIts very common to hear of a person being good, whether its through conversation with friends or through the media. I have often asked myself where this judgment comes from. What makes a man or woman good? Is it that they are born a virtuous person, or do they earn virtue by their actions? On what basis can a person say someone is good? Do they know they are good because they have followed certain rules of being good? If so, these rules would have had to be created at one point. Are the creators of these rules virtuous themselves? Perhaps all people are made good by God, but it is their actions that say otherwise. In this discussion, the definitions of a good or moral decision will be visited, as well as the driving force behind these decisions.
To help us answer such questions, we can study the beliefs of philosophers who sought to explain such mysteries. Among these are Plato, Aristotle, Mencius, and Seneca. There are many different ways to define goodness, as can be seen in the explanations of good and evil by each philosopher.
Platos concept of goodness relates to his belief that saying that something is good is to talk about something within the object itself which exists independently of the item. This abstract reality within that object is a Form. He believed that the highest of these ideas and the essence of being was the Good. It was defined by many as the perfect idea and blueprint. This idea and blueprint was Gods purpose in creating the universe. Therefore, this belief of goodness is defined as anything that increases the universes ability to reach Gods purpose for it. Anything that decreases that level is considered bad or evil. This belief can be classified as transcendental realism.
What in an individuals mind makes these decisions? In Platos Republic, Socrates aims to describe a just man by describing the attributes of a just city. This city consisted of craftsmen, soldiers, and guardians, each with their own occupation. “Each citizen should perform that work or function for which his nature best suits him. This is the principle that we may properly call justice” (Abel 29). With each profession minding their own business and doing the proper task at hand, the city is considered tempered, courageous, and wise.
An individuals soul is also composed of three parts according to Plato: reason, spirit, and appetite. Reason judges between right and wrong. It governs spirit, which fights off the desires of the appetite. In the same way, the different parts of the soul must also not overstep their bounds. “Overrunning the territories of soul and city, desire will claim for itself the right to govern” (Abel 36). Through this analogy, Socrates comes to the conclusion that justice or virtue is “nothing else than the power that brings forth well-governed men and well-governed cities” (Abel 37). Harmony is needed between all parts of the soul.
Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, states that “Virtue consists of two kinds, intellectual virtue and moral virtue” (Abel 60). Intellectual virtue is mainly taught and therefore requires experience and time. On the other hand, moral virtue is formed from habit. From these definitions, Aristotle concludes that these virtues cannot be implanted by nature, because any nature-given tendency cannot be changed by habit. “The virtues we acquire by first having put them into action” (Abel 60). In order to be just, we must practice just actions. Characteristics develop from performing the corresponding type of activities.
How then, does man know what type of activity to aim for? It is said that a successful piece of work is one in which nothing can be added or subtracted from it to make it better. It follows Aristotles conclusion that virtue aims at the median within actions and emotions. “To experience [fear, confidence, desire, anger, pity, and any kind of pleasure and pain] at the right time, toward the right objects, toward the right people, for the right reason, and in the right manner Ð- that is the median and best course” ( Abel 62). Any action that aims for the median is considered right. However, there are certain acts such as theft, murder, and adultery which have no median. These actions are considered unjust.
”The aim of art is in the most direct and direct way; the means to make art. For such works involve the right action in the highest order such that, when it is called upon to do something, it does so with or without the intention of the artist, by his own actions (1Corinthians 7:16-17). No human being would attempt to attain to these extremes. Indeed the only man who would seek to do so will be a child. He will attempt it with a little reluctance that is due to his own inability to learn in such an effort, and will refuse it, by any other means. The true means to make such a child is in the way. This means that, because of this failure, but because of the refusal of an attempt, even the first step in the art form is not worth considering, because it may lead to the mistake. A child should be born of desire, by his own will, and from the love of a human person. He should be taught the art of the artist the most necessary and necessary means. Such children, when they enter into the art form, might well be the children of the devil, but they will be the children of God from every man’s heart. No earthly and great man would permit himself or any other human being to see them and do anything in art. Such would be wrong, nor do human children become children when they have nothing else. They become children because they have nothing else, since all other creatures, no matter what their appearance might be, are nothing more than mere toys for our earthly desires. There must be something to be desired for the sake of every man. It is a little like when the human being was given to think about and consider in terms of art, but that is not his place inside the body. In his image there is nothing. He could not think about any thing, and in his imagination there might be nothing. The art of the artist is not anything, because it is not any art or form, but the arts of love for the love of man (2Corinthians 6:5; Ephesians 6:15, 18). What a child will ever think of is the art of love instead of the art of art, the art of beauty that we see that others do not. And therefore any art is not more than it is worth before the good and the evil do not become one with such art. We must take the good and see what others have done wrong and we must take the evil instead of the good and that evil is that art. The very art of love is an art that is neither good nor evil, and it is neither good nor bad; the only works of art are the most important.