J
JDaniel
Guest
Unfortunately, the word “good” has a number of connotations, or meanings, which quite confuses those who try to understand it. On one hand, it means an item for sale on a shelf in a store. On another hand, it is synonymous with that which is pleasurable. On a third hand, it means that which is helpful or beneficial. On a fourth hand, it means virtuous. And, on the fifth hand it means moral, in the sense of right morality.
Socrates and Epicurus, thought of it as the attainment of a thing, or possibly a state of being, they called “eudemonia”. This word can be transliterated to mean, human flourishing, and is tied to “virtue” by some philosophers but not others. By it was meant that mankind has always had a tendency towards that which was beneficial to the one or the many. Thus, we could know that certain kinds of destructive behaviors were not beneficial to society and they, therefore, were down-scale from eudemonia. In fact, the more that were benefited, the better the act of beneficence, on the scale.
Thus, there was a hierarchy of “virtues” and eudemonia was its top-most level. As one descended on this scale, one might pass a certain point and would enter that part of the scale that was called “evil”. Evil, therefore, was scalar too. This “scale” was called “good and evil”.
I must point out that all of these thoughts and conclusions occurred prior in time to Christ and the enhanced knowledge of our (Judeo-Christian) God that He brought with Him by His intercession here on earth as God’s Son. And, as we know (and been reminded by CatsAndDogs), there has never been a time when we were without God. It is interesting to note here that the root(s) of the word “good”, in most languages, come from their form of the word “god”.
What the Christian, more particularly, the Catholic, means by “moral” and “good”, is from the fifth sense. The Catholic certainly does not mean the first definition above.
Nor, does he mean from it the second sense, except that the accomplishment of good (deeds, for example) might give off a certain sense of pleasure. But that is an accidental property deriving from a substantive “good” action.
From the third sense, we know plainly enough, that that which is beneficial is good. And, that it is better (more good) as the benefit includes more entities that receive its beneficial effects. To a larger extent this “good” has similarities to our fifth sense, but, it does not usurp it. Some real benefit might occur that is thought to be neutral, or, a beneficial action might be misunderstood as being a benefit or not being a benefit. Nevertheless, it is largely subjective, with no grounding in anything but mathematics.
From the fourth sense, good gets even closer to our definitional fullness of “moral”. “Virtue” has far more often been a part of “morality”, in the Christian sense, than the secular sense from eudemonia. This form of good is also scalar and, in one of its iterations, posits a “perfect sage” as its highest level. (I believe we can call this perfect sage “God”, but, that’s another topic.)
“Morality” and “moral good” are understood to be the human participation in God’s Natural Law. This fifth sense is the sense that the Christian means when describing the subject. If this is the case, then God is the efficient cause of morality. If He is the efficient cause he is, of necessity, necessary to it.
MindOverMatter has provided us a proof of this, in my opinion. None of the first four senses of “good” impart the feeling of “guilt”. Only the latter sense does this. Guilt is the feeling that one has offended someone, not something. Although a person may be guilty of breaking a law he may feel no sense of guilt, especially if, for example, the law was purely penal, such as receiving a parking ticket.
On the other hand, if, by breaking a law, he sets off a chain of events that affects his family, subjecting then to the effects of removal of shelter, for example, as the bread-winner goes to prison for some while, a feeling of guilt may set in (unless he is of a hardened criminal nature). He has offended someone, or, at least he believes that he did. And yet, this violation if it is not a violation of Natural Law, does not cause guilt from offense of God.
Also, we do not feel guilt for actions that violate human flourishing. Human flourishing is either too vague or too large, and we fervently skip right past any guilt stage.
Ultimately, when someone violates laws in the category of the Natural Law, unless he is aberrated and/or has no affinity for life, i.e., the awareness of awareness survival dynamic, he believes he has offended something larger than himself, and that entity we know to be God.
Thank you MindOverMatter, I was blind to this until your post.
JC
Socrates and Epicurus, thought of it as the attainment of a thing, or possibly a state of being, they called “eudemonia”. This word can be transliterated to mean, human flourishing, and is tied to “virtue” by some philosophers but not others. By it was meant that mankind has always had a tendency towards that which was beneficial to the one or the many. Thus, we could know that certain kinds of destructive behaviors were not beneficial to society and they, therefore, were down-scale from eudemonia. In fact, the more that were benefited, the better the act of beneficence, on the scale.
Thus, there was a hierarchy of “virtues” and eudemonia was its top-most level. As one descended on this scale, one might pass a certain point and would enter that part of the scale that was called “evil”. Evil, therefore, was scalar too. This “scale” was called “good and evil”.
I must point out that all of these thoughts and conclusions occurred prior in time to Christ and the enhanced knowledge of our (Judeo-Christian) God that He brought with Him by His intercession here on earth as God’s Son. And, as we know (and been reminded by CatsAndDogs), there has never been a time when we were without God. It is interesting to note here that the root(s) of the word “good”, in most languages, come from their form of the word “god”.
What the Christian, more particularly, the Catholic, means by “moral” and “good”, is from the fifth sense. The Catholic certainly does not mean the first definition above.
Nor, does he mean from it the second sense, except that the accomplishment of good (deeds, for example) might give off a certain sense of pleasure. But that is an accidental property deriving from a substantive “good” action.
From the third sense, we know plainly enough, that that which is beneficial is good. And, that it is better (more good) as the benefit includes more entities that receive its beneficial effects. To a larger extent this “good” has similarities to our fifth sense, but, it does not usurp it. Some real benefit might occur that is thought to be neutral, or, a beneficial action might be misunderstood as being a benefit or not being a benefit. Nevertheless, it is largely subjective, with no grounding in anything but mathematics.
From the fourth sense, good gets even closer to our definitional fullness of “moral”. “Virtue” has far more often been a part of “morality”, in the Christian sense, than the secular sense from eudemonia. This form of good is also scalar and, in one of its iterations, posits a “perfect sage” as its highest level. (I believe we can call this perfect sage “God”, but, that’s another topic.)
“Morality” and “moral good” are understood to be the human participation in God’s Natural Law. This fifth sense is the sense that the Christian means when describing the subject. If this is the case, then God is the efficient cause of morality. If He is the efficient cause he is, of necessity, necessary to it.
MindOverMatter has provided us a proof of this, in my opinion. None of the first four senses of “good” impart the feeling of “guilt”. Only the latter sense does this. Guilt is the feeling that one has offended someone, not something. Although a person may be guilty of breaking a law he may feel no sense of guilt, especially if, for example, the law was purely penal, such as receiving a parking ticket.
On the other hand, if, by breaking a law, he sets off a chain of events that affects his family, subjecting then to the effects of removal of shelter, for example, as the bread-winner goes to prison for some while, a feeling of guilt may set in (unless he is of a hardened criminal nature). He has offended someone, or, at least he believes that he did. And yet, this violation if it is not a violation of Natural Law, does not cause guilt from offense of God.
Also, we do not feel guilt for actions that violate human flourishing. Human flourishing is either too vague or too large, and we fervently skip right past any guilt stage.
Ultimately, when someone violates laws in the category of the Natural Law, unless he is aberrated and/or has no affinity for life, i.e., the awareness of awareness survival dynamic, he believes he has offended something larger than himself, and that entity we know to be God.
Thank you MindOverMatter, I was blind to this until your post.
JC
