@All
My own answer to (1) is pretty similar to what Gokul said; I believe that each person probably has their own idea of what ‘good’ means to them, and the larger good can probably be defined in terms of each person following and living up to their own, individual conceptions of this. However, if one is to accept this definition (which I do), then it immediately begs two other extremely important questions, ones that are actually suggested by Saba and Sid’s posts. Firstly, does our definition of individual conceptions of good assume that everybody MUST have a certain conception of good and evil/ morality, no matter how subjective i.e. that such a conception is intrinsic to our makeup as human beings? Our definition would probably break down if this weren’t the case, and yet this is something that I have to think about, and that I cannot answer to or for myself at present. What I can tell you is that, while the definition of individual-level good and evil makes sense to me on a basic, gut-feeling level, the corollary does not carry as much certainty. Fundamentally, I believe that a certain level of rational thought, of conscious effort, is required for people to come up with their own conceptions of morality; it is not something that comes naturally to us as humans. Indeed, a number of moral precepts actually involve SUPPRESSING our natural urges; to assume that a tendency to develop moral impulses that suppress our baser urges is just as inbuilt and natural to us as the very urges they are meant to suppress seems to me to be a bit hard to swallow. I find the idea of a person who doesn’t actually feel any need to formulate a conception of what good and evil are for himself or herself perfectly plausible (RPG fans: this would be the True Neutral alignment). And yet, against this we have the fact a lot of us do seem to share certain moral precepts, which in turn seems to imply that there IS some shared inborn impulse towards developing a sense of morality – AND, what’s more, that these impulses tend towards our developing moral senses that actually share a lot of the same ideas of good and evil (throwing off BOTH the definition and the corollary). So yeah. Confusing stuff.

The second important question that the definition to (1) brings up is basically the same point that Sid and Saba bring up: if a tendency towards the development of a moral sense (either subjectively on an individual level OR objectively and absolutely) DOES exist, where does the motivation for it come from? Does it come from God? A shared desire for happiness? Our selfish, selfish genes?

As for paragraph (2) from my original post, the answer to that would to some extent rely on the answer to (1), and also rely on what Hindu texts/schools of thought/hoary old sages seem to be saying – none of which I feel too qualified to talk about, although I am pretty eager to hear what more well-versed people on this forum think about it in this context.

And finally, a Pinker article on morality. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ei=5087&em&en=180615d155579d74&ex=1200373200 My favorite part: “People don’t generally engage in moral reasoning, Haidt argues, but moral rationalization: they begin with the conclusion, coughed up by an unconscious emotion, and then work backward to a plausible justification.”

Like any sensible philosopher, I’m going to not answer this, but throw out a number of possible answers, each of which we can discuss/deconstruct:

1. Human beings have continually and tirelessly striven towards achieving happiness. Since each individual is, after all, undeniably associated with the society he or she interacts with, this effort has often taken shape in the form of a collective effort to establish a set of ground rules that promotes a flourishing community. Religions have provided wonderful incentives for people to follow these rules. The existence of a greater power (ie. God) that defines these guidelines convinces people to submit to them. In this sense, God (and these set of rules, which we can label “moral actions”) are social constructs that aid a stable and happy society. Here, of course, this takes away from the ideal that there is ONE moral Truth, which tends to be problematic. Take the case of the German cannibal Armin Meiwes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes). It’s a horribly bizarre story that raises SO many questions on morality. Is what Meiwes did wrong? I’m not sure. The fact that it was consensual just makes it SO messy.

2. Now, if you do admit to the existence of an omniscient greater power, people often are unable to reconcile the differences between the existence of God and Evil/suffering. St Augustine (in Confessions, my favorite reading in the course so far) tackles exactly this: free will. If God created people with a perfect sense of morality, the world will be filled with (in the words of my TF) perfect moral automata. Which would definitely be boring. This also, to a very large extent, means that you can construct this God as you desire.

3. Finally, my take with respect to Hinduism (this follows from #2; I believe this is true only for theistic schools of thought in Hinduism): In Vedanta, karma is not a list of actions with +’s and -’s that determine your next birth, etc, but a function of your actions and God’s – for lack of a better work – handiwork. In a very commonly described example that refers to the atman and the ego, “Two birds of beautiful plumage — inseparable friends — live on the same tree. Of these two one eats the sweet fruit while the other looks on without eating.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Hinduism#Vedanta_and_other_theistic_schools)

Thoughts?

This is probably a completely ignorant question, so i apologize in advance, but I’m curious: are there similar incentives in the Hindu tradition? Is this where “Karma” comes in?

Very interesting post and comments. Kudos for actually attempting rational discourse regarding this issue. I haven’t met many people who allow themselves to grapple with the ideas being thrown around here without feeling like their religious identity is being threatened.

Regarding your paragraph (1), this is a very old problem, and we covered it in fair detail just a couple of weeks ago in one of my classes. In Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro, Socrates phrases it roughly as “is that which pleases the gods good because it pleases the gods, or does it please the gods because it is good?” The two major schools of Islamic theology, the Mu`tazilites and the Ash`arites, were sharply divided on this issue.

Which is merely to say that this is a long-standing debate in ethics and theology and philosophy. I am very curious to know what you guys think what the response should be. For my part I’m comfortable leaving it to the individual to decide what “good” means to them, ideally in conversation with other people (so as to maintain some sense of shared values).

And as for (2), I don’t know. My instinctive response is to say that what should matter as far as leading an ethical life, regardless of religious or cultural tradition, is one’s setting out a quest for “good”. What that “good” may be and what the path that one takes to that “good” may be can be studied within particular religious or cultural communities. (G, notice how I’ve gracefully sidestepped your difficult question!)

I’m curious to know what you think of your own puzzle, because the “answer” to the question you pose is in a way the “answer” to my question here of what this “good” is.