Going back a few days, the idea of writing this post is triggered by some discussion happening in Geddoe’s recent post, in which he talked about a Shakespearean notion of “good” and “bad”:
“Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”
While the idea about illusion of “good” or “bad” has been on the spotlight of discussion (attended by me, him, and mas gentole amongst other), the topic then slided on how value on things shall be determined. A topic which, in turn, led to each of us talking about our own idea of valuing “good” and “bad”.
Of course this, like many philosophy-themed discussions in coffee-shops, shall run free in the naturally-vast discourse: human ethics, mankind in general, and possibility of a universal moral conduct, if any. The discussion itself was quite lively (IMO) — however, due to the nature of statement-based reply discussion[1], and attempt of guarding against being OOT ( 
), I feel that some of my idea wasn’t conveyed as well as intended; thus may be confusing to follow in some parts.
So, without further ado, I decided to write down my own view about it in this personal blog, in order to give a big picture of all my previous comments. Here goes…
Note:For background information: My theological stance is, presently, agnosticism. That said, I don’t consider supernatural-based morality conduct (i.e. religions and holy scripture) as prime components in defining my view on ethics.
Also note that any discourse concerning afterlife, heaven, hell, purgatory, and such is not of any interest — and deemed irrelevant — in this post.
***
Part I – Defining Value
1. On Agnosticism
As an agnostic, I have been aware of metaphysical ideas’ being unverifiable, unfalsifiable, and imperceivable — at least, not in this world. Among those ideas are religions, holy scriptures, religious teachings, and even the God himself.
I don’t want to go into lengthy explanation about God-or-not — that’s not my focus this time — and you can read [this post] if you want to understand. What I want to say is that I have casted doubt upon absolute truth in unverifiable claims of God and afterlife.
To rely on unverifiable things’ existence to value things, for me, doesn’t seem favorable. That’s why I narrowed the scope of defining values only into worldly aspect.
One thing to note, however: I am not against God and religion, as you may find out in my posts and comments here and here. How I see God is like seeing Schrodinger’s Cat: it is both possible that He exists or not — something like that. I am not enforcing that anyone must or must not believe in Him; it’s due to personal matter and subjective consideration anyway.
Quoting Asimov,
“I prefer rationalism to atheism. The question of God and other objects-of-faith are outside reason and play no part in rationalism, thus you don’t have to waste your time in either attacking or defending.”
……
2. On Value
Back to the topic. Then, if not for God and religion’s sake, what do we do? How can we define what is “good” and “bad” in this world?
Now, I’m going to describe few keys of importance in this matter.
As I have described in my comments in Geddoe’s post, I take for granted that there is one imperatively good thing to protect in this world. Namely, “happiness” of people.
Quoting from my own comment,
I take for granted that happiness is the most important thing in this life, if afterlife not to be considered. So, maximizing the sum of happiness for everybody, along with my own, is on top priority.
This — as you may have guessed — is a utilitarianistic idea. 
Apparently, I have stated that people’s happiness is imperatively good in itself. Well, assuming we only live once in this world, and not having an afterlife — I will feel damned if I get a miserable one. However the most important thing is not my happiness only: others’ happiness also plays important role.
Or, talking with diagram:
Utilitarianism
|
+— Individual Happiness (i.e. per person)
|
+— Global Happiness (i.e. “the greater good” )
……
3. On Utilitarianism
What’s with utilitarianism? Quoting Wikipedia,
Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility, that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons.
(link)
That said, everything is conducted in order to make for “the greater good”. If you’re a fan of 24 TV series, I’m sure you’re accustomed to this. CTU agent did suicide mission to prevent nuclear warhead exploding in LA; risking one’s life for the sake of confidential terrorism data, etc., etc. As convincing as its name (”utilitiarianism”; from “utility”), usefulness is the most important thing in focus here.
A dramatic example is shown in season 2 of 24, in which CTU’s #1 agent Jack Bauer elected to fly nuclear bomb out of the city, as the only way to prevent the bomb exploding in the city — with a certain one-way ticket that he will have to explode with the bomb. Luckily then surprise happened, but that’s another story.
At that condition, nobody in CTU would want him to die; he’s the best agent — but there’s no other choice, no other way out. So there he went.
…
Of course, utilitarianistic move doesn’t always imply that, to win collective and greater good, we must do some personal sacrifice. Rather, it merely conveys the idea that “collective/greater needs are better prioritized over personal/smaller needs”.
……
4. Individual and Collective Happiness
4.1. My “Egocentric” Idea
Back then in the discussion in Geddoe’s post, I proposed a seemingly utilitarian idea that, in the end, reveals itself to be a view concerning my needs:
Strange as it may be, but that’s how I think it is. As for your point: is the family planning good? I said: yes. Why?
Because it prevents baby boom, then prevents food shortage, then prevents economics difficulties, and in the end, I don’t need to face food shortage — and economic recession — at the latter stage of my life. That, is my happiness. ^^
I support nature preservation. Because I don’t want to live in spoiled earth, drink contaminated water, and I want the coffee beans to stay on its highest quality. Therefore, I can continue (or even maintain) this happiness I already have upon living on this earth.
Eventually, everything goes back to my own happiness. I always commented upon this myself, that this is some kind of selfishness. What differs it from hedonism is, I am considering things in the long run. ^^
A bit self-oriented, perhaps. But hey, why are we living on earth if not to have a gulp of happiness in it?
That is almost paradox. Being selfish in itself, that is to preserve my own happiness — but, as a byproduct, contributes positively to others’ happiness. Now, isn’t it strange? 
To a certain degree, I freely confess that this view is based on economics’ worth of things. However I bring this into topic not without intention: what I want to show is that, to some extent, individual happiness may overlap with the course of collective happiness, i.e. collective “good” I have defined on the beginning of this post.
If I am to prioritize my happiness over collective’s, then I can do many shortcut means to happiness and prosperity. Doing corruption, cheating on trades and bargains, doing evil for my own sake. However, this isn’t good: as I have implied in the next comment,
You may ask: “if happiness in life is that important to you, then you don’t need to care for ethics! You can do evil for your prosperity, and live hedonistically.” But no…
If I (and many people) do that, the happiness won’t be sustainable. Economics will fall, peace will be scarce, world fall apart — I won’t be able to drink my vanilla coffee and watch football match every weekend.
In my opinion, personal happiness that will do harm to the social system isn’t good. Basically it’s not self-sustaining: my happiness today may lead me to the downfall the next day. Either directly or indirectly: people may bring me to the police, or doing martial law on my greed — or, if they chose to be ignorant, it is the society downfall that will befall me.
Maybe today I (along with few else) can manipulate our taxes for profit — but, in a long run, the collapse of the economy will find its way to us. Just like many employee from Soeharto’s reign feasted upon international debt in 80’s, as their misdeeds now caused the unending-yet monetary crisis in Indonesia.
It is alright to have your personal desire fulfilled. Just don’t forget to care whether it is doing more harm or good in a long run.
4.2. On Collective “Goodness”
I am among people who believe that, if something has no harmful side effects, then doing it en masse wouldn’t be hurting anyone. So, I believe that if everyone has the same idea as I explained in point 4.1., then it wouldn’t result in something disastrous. My bet: it would be even capable of maximizing sustainable happiness for everyone.
Talk about example. I’m against war because it may lead to the disappearance of peace and wealth already accumulated, which is the source of happiness of many people (me included). What will happen if many people think the same way? You bet…
……
5. Revisiting My Value: Is it Purely Subjective, or can-be more Objective?
Of all things, let’s take another look of our definition this far.
Assuming that there is no afterlife, then happiness is the most important focus in this world Well, if you only life once, you wouldn’t want to have it gone miserably…
Then, we have to work to maximize our happiness And do it sustainably. Just remember the point 4.1.
In the macro scope… Apparently, if happiness is our focus, then maximizing it for the biggest sum of it, individually and collectively, is an automatic goal. Hence the utilitarianism.
Economically talking, this kind of value system is quite reasonable. However, there is one question:
Happiness is relative. It is due to person, and tends to be subjective.
How do you define a “collective good”, if the core definition of the goal (i.e. happiness) is still due to subjectivity?
This is a delicate issue. For example, how do I know if there is a psychopathic general, seated on a high position, in my country’s army hierarchy? He may feel happiness through ethnic cleansing or such. Same goes for possible psychologically-deviant people: they may want to do pedophilic actions — or perhaps craving for cannibalistic feast, e.g. like the legendary Dr. Hannibal Lecter.
In my opinion, there are three reasonable ways for examining this:
- Validate with “greater good”
- Is it in harmony with sustainable sources of happiness?
- Validate with economical means
If this is about to make loss of the current happiness of people in status quo, without better reward at all, then it’s not good. Prohibitable.
Best illustrated like this: tax corruption is subjectively good, but not for the society’s sustainability; warfare ambition may be subjectively good, but may end up giving miseries to many people (including own’s citizen); and so on.
Will allowing these desires result in favorable economic trade-off?
For instance, let’s take subjective view that supports genocide. In most cases it will harvest international criticisms and, possibly, reluctance from other countries to do diplomatic activities. At this rate this isn’t a good tradeoff, and shall just be avoided at all.
On lesser extent, but more down-to-earth example: letting go of rapists may end up in society’s insecurity and tension, leads to riot, then halting all activities in it. Bad trade-off in the end.
On personal point of view, I’d like to note that defining “good” is subjective to each person by nature. Nevertheless, there’s a way to make it seem more objective — that is, to consider it on the base of worth-to-worth and consequential results. Comparing the eventual trade-off with the decision made can be of some good measurement; though it doesn’t apply in every case.
……
Part II – On Universal Moral Conduct
6. The Collective Goal
Based on our discourse thus far, you may have guessed how it would sound. Apparently it’s not different from the ideal of utilitarianism per se. That is,
To maintain the sum of collective and individual “good” (i.e. happiness) in the longest duration possible
Pay attention to the keyword “duration”. The sustainability, as I have described in part 4, plays important role in this aspect. Simply said, nobody wants to have happiness that ends fast — or, in worse scenario, ends up as a nightmare.
When I said about “universal” moral conduct, it is more like these — as digested from the points I have described before.
Maximize your happiness wisely; Respect others’. Keep your environment in good form for everyone’s benefit. Do not be dangerously selfish, so that you end up ruining everyone’s previously existing happiness.
One may ask, though:
Why does it have to be sustainable? If you can live with it all your life, and then the system breaks as soon as you die. It doesn’t cost you anything at all, right?
Well, actually that’s true. At least for me. If I die first and the system breaks down later, I don’t have to care — I’m lucky to have enjoyed it all my life.
To this question, I freely confess, the answer is only through altruism. In the system of which we take no interest after leaving, then it’s the possible answer.
Nevertheless, there’s this interesting quote I saw while reading a linux guru’s interview in local magazine:
“My mentor told me back then: ‘if you feel that you have learnt much from the open-source gurus and net forums, be grateful for it. That is, by sharing your knowledge to the newbies like you once were.’”
From old InfoLinux magazine I ever read. Well, perhaps that’s also one good idea…
……
7. Side Issues
Back in that discussion, I was mentioning something aside these utilitarianism and ethical things; though are still related in the discourse of ethics. It was about two matters which will be addressed below.
7.1. About Religious Ethics Influence
Despite my being agnostic and doubting the truth about God/religions in common, I still manage to react rather positively towards them. Quoting — once again — from my own comment,
I do think that metaphysical grounds (in this case, religions) may prove its usefulness — I do find some religious teachings fits well to help us developing as mankind. Among them Golden Rule, Christianity’s idea of love and compassion, and Gandhi’s ahimsa. There are also some hadith that (IMO) conduct some good morality… They provided me some leaps of understanding of morality, which in turn helped me in developing those personal values.
While I see myself as mostly utilitarian person, I do find that some religious teachings possess a usable merit of their own. And, to some degree, many of it would fit to my utilitarian value system scheme.
I do have admiration for Golden Rule because of its simplicity but, nevertheless, outstanding idea of “don’t do to other what you don’t want to be treated as such”. It fits with the idea of sustainable source of peace — as well as Christianity’s teaching of love and peace.
Another came from the Koran, which as follows:
And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine.
(109:4-6)
That, of all things, implies an idea of acknowledging different beliefs and religions between people.
While I’m merely an agnostic, these messages have their versatility to suit to my contemporary idea of universal value of norm. I don’t necessarily believe in God and/or religions. However, I do think that humanity may inspire from any wisdom they have inherited through their long history. Be it from philosophy, religion, or perhaps anthropology and history as well.
7.2. About System-Efficiency and Contrasting-Happiness Ideas (Re: LGBT and Same-Sex Marriage)
This topic was also mentioned, though slightly. Back then my view was as follows:
When deciding “good” and “bad” of things, I don’t see them per se; rather I try to see the usefulness of it.
Perhaps I’d better illustrate with example. For instance about morality, I don’t support same-sex marriage. Why? Simple. Marriage is intended to protect children’s rights; they are born penniless and powerless. An ideal marriage not only protect the children’s finance until they’re ready to work by themselves: it also proved acknowledgement to the infants, provide legal status, and — in addition — assuring inheritance from their parents. There’s a legal certainty about who’s whose father, who must be held responsible financially, etc, etc. This is for different-sex marriage (DSM).
In same-sex marriage (SSM), there’s no benefit out of it. They don’t have children whose legal and financial needs to be protected. Some ruling may enable them to adopt child, but that’s just making new problem out of nothing! It’ll just become an inefficient system with bulky mechanism.
That’s why, I prefer DSM and disregard SSM. In term of usefulness and efficiency, it doesn’t comply with my standard.
My view on this is, although SSM is all about happiness, I don’t see a need to support them. That is more to the efficiency and usefulness of the rule.
However, I do support the rights the SSM couple as long as it is about universal human rights. I am against discrimination for them — what I don’t agree is about the legal fuss for an importance that, for me, doesn’t have strong enough foundation. My stance on this is rather on the middle: I ‘m not staunch that it mustn’t happen, just that I don’t feel there’s any benefit out of it.
That said, any law — or conduct — that gives away too little or no benefit, or inefficient in its manner, isn’t considered “good” by me.
Another fitting example will be Indonesia’s government SPMB (national college entrance exam) form showing “Warga Keturunan” (i.e. descendant of immigrants) field. While this is reflecting truth and probably useful for statistics, this is — in my opinion — a dilly-dally. Let alone the possibility that those citizens may as well feel offended!
***
Move on to the next case. This one isn’t naturally related with the essence of “efficiency” I just have mentioned; rather it’s about the presence LGBT themselves.
I personally think that I can’t prevent anyone’s emotional (or hormonal) affection to each other, even if I wanted to. So there goes. Simply said, I’m neutral in this one. My only minor concern is that, if they are going for PDA — just don’t do it near the people intolerable to it. For their own sake.
My note is, if they can be productive, useful, courteous, and mingling positively in society, then it’s categorically alright. So there you have it.
……
8. Wrapping It All…
So, it comes to an end. I hope that you have been able to get a big picture of my own definition of “good” and “bad”, and some of my contemporary world-view. Of course, like any other means of man-made idea to define ethics, I expect that this is far from perfection. I suppose that there are even loopholes in it, though.
The intention of writing this post is to inform about how I perceive the world, and how I considered an ethic suitable for my own use (thus also replying some questions I received back then ). I’ll be more than happy if anyone would tell me what they think; or showing loophole(s); or — by any means — giving feedback that may result in fruitful discussion.
Thank you for reading. Replies and inquiries can be sent via the comment facility at the bottom of this page.
——
Note:
[1] Statement-based reply discussion, i.e. somebody commented on something, then I reply his/her answer based on the statements/questions he/she uttered. For most cases this provides lively dialogue, but I often find this mechanism hindering for long and vast subjects.
E.g. when somebody talked about my utilitarianism, I was focused on it, rather than explaining the big picture along with it (i.e. the simultaneous self-and-collective utilitarianism, etc.). The space and formatting was also little compared to a blog post; hence my decision of writing this one. ^^
![[img-latest]](http://pics.livejournal.com/kitamurazv/pic/000a20hy)
![[img-feature]](http://pics.livejournal.com/kitamurazv/pic/0004afqp)
Clear enough.
But as I said this kind of ethics doesn’t work when:
1) There’s a conflict of interest between two parties that do not affect the “greater good”; a situation where there’s only a win-lose solution.
2). An evil deed is hidden. If I kill somebody or embezzle some money from the state and nobody knows about the evil deeds I have done and the crimes were perfectly carried that no one but the victims is victimized.
“…if there is no God, everything is permitted.” A quotation often referred to Dostoevsky in Brothers Karamazov.
I hope other this post attracts other bloggers. Frankly, I’d rather read than comment now. Perhaps, another theist would join the discussion.
Kudos.
Fiuuuh,, Ma cape ngebacanya,,
Tapi kayanya setiap poin itu bener bener ‘Sora banget’ ya,,
Mulai dari Sora yang agnostik, 24, bola, taking for granted masalah kebaikan itu,, Apa lagi ya?
anw, kangen juga muter2 bacain ngobrolnya Difo-Sora yang cuma Ma ngerti 70%an,,
*jadi malu*
btw, PDA itu public display of affection?
Hohohohohohohohoho,,
Currently I’m reading a book about ideologies. At the book is shown one main flaw of utilitarianism which is it led to majority dictatorism, ie you doing something because it’s good for most of people but perhaps it violated minorities’ rights.
The example of the flaw is like you take a village’s land without compensation or perhaps a little bit compensation for the sake of electricity for most people in your country.
Another example is ticking time bomb scenario. You have show part of example like when Jack Bauer save a city that has a bomb somewhere in its part. However what if Jack needs to torture a suspect for the sake of information? FYI, torture is a jus cogens crime which is there is no way to derogate the rule (well, you can either argue it’s not jus cogens crime or the treatment is not torture however but that is another issue). This ticking bomb scenario is used by the USA Government to detain indefinitely and torture people at Guantanamo. They argue that it is for the security of America. But is this good enough?
I know it’s a little bit hyperbolic however it shows that what is good for most people is might be not ethical.
Ah, yeah I forgot to link this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario
Btw, link saya masuk akismet. Tolong dimunculkan dong. Thanks.
So, today you show the world that “happiness is (your) lifestyle”. Awesome explanation.
& same to the post about your agnostic belief, I prefer to just respect for this (in Rizma’s words) “Sora banget” kind of topic, (meaning not to comment about nor share my own view)
*crap comment with bad english*
Uh, I’m a bit dizzy reading your post. May I bookmark this one to read it later?
*submitting*
@ gentole
1) In such situation, I guess then we have to deduce which choice give better end results. I don’t say that we shall always be able to measure what’s better than what — but at least there is a guideline to follow.
2) The problem is actually in information flow. To judge a condition optimally, we need all the significant info to ponder decision — which, in your case (and the real world as well) doesn’t necessarily occur.
Being utilitarian means making strategic approach to things. Strategy needs information that, unfortunately isn’t always there… but perhaps “no perfection” is the nature of our world. No?
I know that quote; it still impresses me as ever. Aside of its superficial, seemingly dictatorship nature, one has to note that God-based morality is very effective. And is also easy to use.
Sometimes due to those I consider that religious ethics has the best penetrability into society, BTW. But that’s another story for this time. ^^
:::::
@ Rizma
Lha iya, jelas aja ’saya banget’. Lha wong saya yang nulis, kok…
:::::
@ Nenda Fadhilah
Why, I’m reminded of young Dumbledore and Grindelwald’s idea of ruling over muggles for ‘greater goods’ ?
Well, somebody may want to use worth-to-worth and consequential result approach. However, in this case I tend to focus on maintaining the already existed happiness in people. I.e. status quo. To keep the sum of happiness already possessed in society — IMHO — is better than to improve some’s while leaving others’ behind. In this case of villagers, I’d rather keep it as is yet.
The country citizens are accustomed yet to no electricity; the villagers are content with their land. They are happy yet — don’t upset anyone until we find a viable win-win solution IMHO.
Apparently, it’s also a problem. But then you can always see the story behind.
In your example, Jack needs to torture OR bomb explodes. Torture may not be ethical, but is the idea of igniting nuclear warhead ethical? Jack torture the terrorist, while the terrorist wants to explode a chunk of the city. Both are unethical in a sense — but there is a sum of who committed more serious offense to consensus ethics. In this case, I choose Jack’s action.
That doesn’t make Jack an ethical person; but the thing is he prevents someone from doing something far, far more wicked. 
In the end, I’d rather say that unethical means can only be used to prevent bigger, more serious unethical attempts. An FBI agent may lie on the net in order to bait (and arrest) a pedophile/child stalker. Lying is not ethically good, but here in this case, it is sort of justified.
Sudah muncul.
:::::
@ jensen99
Hohoho!
People told me to live with style 
as well as some cigarette ads— so, naturally, I choose one that will be most pleasing to me.*digebuk pake bantal* xD
:::::
@ Prabu Pandu Asakura®
Actually you didn’t need to ask… ^^’
Perhaps, I do not tell the scenario fully to get the best response. However, you have left one slip behind. It is about the effectiveness of torture. What if Jack is facing is man like Amrozi who does not afraid to die. I think he rather to be water boarded, beated, pissed, etc rather than divulge the information. Torture won’t be effective in the matter, right. You need more ‘clever’ interrogation. This is actually not about choose this or that, however, can you find another way that is more effective than what actually the narrator say.
Defuse the ticking time bomb scenario:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/10/torture-and-ticking-time-bomb.html
http://www.apt.ch/content/view/109/lang,en/
The ethical cost of lying averagely is smaller than torture.
@ Nenda Fadhilah
If you said that there can be another solution, then I’d have taken it into consideration.
Your narrative seemed to me that I had to choose between “torture” or “bomb explodes”; hence the analysis. ^^
What, is this creative problem-solving challenge?
Well. So, following the illustration from before: there is this Jack Bauer facing a terrorist holding important information.
If I were Jack…
…I will give the terrorists chance to run from detainment. Subtly, though. I.e., so that he’ll feel that he ‘escaped’ by his effort — even though, unbeknownst to him, I have lowered guards on him. More like a ’staged escape’.
Then he’ll feel on a high because he think he’s run from the country’s detainment. At this point, I’ll dispatch some CTU resource to trail him, for most likely he’ll come into contact with his terrorism-cell again… if I’m lucky, I’ll be able to get some hint on the bigger fishes (i.e. the mob and the bomb).
Or, more imaginatively, I may want to do some Ethan Hunt first — by stealthily injecting some nano-sized transmitter to that terrorist before the staged escape. Then I may be able to detect his cell and the places he’ll visit.
Another way: give him a place in penitentiary. If he wants to bribe the guard for laptop and internet, give it — I’ve installed keylogger there — and I shall get his e-mail ID, IM account… his means of communications. And their passwords.
Ultimately I’ll come to his mail/IM provider office, saying: “Jack Bauer, CTU. We have some law-related issue; need records on this ID in your service”. I’ll know if he talked about bombs in it. Bang. 
There are many ways to
RomeNorth London…That wasn’t my point. ^^; What I did is comparing the ethical costs head-to-head in one single case.
The FBI lie is placed against child-stalking pedophilic activity. The torture case was compared with igniting nuclear warhead in city of L.A.
Of course the ethical cost of torture is far greater than lying, but that’s not the idea I was talking about.
I do have a theory about two kind of utilitarian.
First who only see prima facie value from their choice. They often only see short range benefit from their choice. They think they choose the best choice while in fact their choice is clearly not useful in the future.
Second who can see deeper value from their choice. For the rest, I can tell you it just a contradiction from the first one.
One bad thing that happen, most of utilitarians are stuck at the first category. However, I’m not saying that you stuck at the first category.
Well, I did explain about short-and-long term benefit in point 4.1. up there. Got feeling that kinda sorts it…
BTW, how ‘deep’ is ‘deeper value’ you mentioned in the second category, actually? That’s kinda… uh, unclear to some degree, IMHO. ^^;
It is intrinsic value as in economics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value
It’s kinda hard to me to explain but it’s like underlying value from an option. It’s like you may torturing people because it appears to be quickest way to save a city however it can be proved to be worthless because:
a. The suspect might be not the right people and he give you false testimony in order to escape the torturing
b. The suspect might be the real one however he rather to die than give the testimony,
c. etc.
I think I get what you mean. In this torture case, you tend to see the economic intrinsic value of “torture” itself, right? I.e., you decide whether it’s good to use — or not — after considering all the positive and negative aspects.
In other words, you tend to value things after considering all its pros and cons first; before, finally, being able to state whether “this is good” or “bad”. Or so I think. CMIIW.
If that’s true, then it’s slightly different from my idea — which leans more favorably toward instrumental values. But that’s another story for this time.
Hmm… talking about “greater good”, somehow it reminds me of a film titled “Hot Fuzz”, which depicts local residents secretly kills bad-mannered people for keeping the title “Best Village of the Year”. For the greater good, they said.
What about Prussian Army in 18th century? Voltaire said, because of the mass amount of the army, that, “Where some states have an army, the Prussian Army has a state.”
Such stratocracy, in my view, seems to face wars and physical conflicts that collides with peace of the people. But because of the majority of the people work in the army, and gain prosperity from which, could that be classified as a collective goodness?
@ Xaliber von Reginhild
Well, never watched it yet, so I don’t know the big picture. However, in that case, I don’t actually support that kind of “greater good”.
You may want to compare with the validating criteria I mentioned in section 5. The trade-off here (killing people v. honorable mention) just doesn’t seem balanced.
Besides, who knows if there are people wanting to avenge the victims. It may result in riot and scathed society, IMHO. ^^
Talking about “greater good”, IMO there are conditions need to be considered. Not simply because the majority says so, then it becomes the true collective good.
For indirect example: is “korupsi berjamaah” good? So many people prosper from it. Answer is: “no”. Why? It doesn’t come in harmony with sustainable source of happiness.
Now for your example. There is an army-statocracy, of which the majority in it prosper through war. However, by assessing the criteria in section 5 above,
So there you have it. Talking about “greater good”, the army-statocracy idea may fit — but in the next two criteria, it tends to fail rather miserably, IMO.
Neither do I.
They’re just really crazy. 
About the Prussians, hmm… so it tends to fail the collective goodness. Could I conclude that the live of the people is more important to be viewed as a collective goodness than the progress of the state, as seen in early dictatorial or fascist nations?
Well, actually, there are many ways for us to interpret what is “good” in our life. This discussion is as old as philosophy itself… You may want to read [this] and [this] for some bigger picture. ^^
Our idea of what is “good” has many choices to be based on to — whether it is economics trade-off, God and religion, personal happiness, usefulness, etc., etc. Any of them has their own proponents, as well as their own unique merits and weaknesses.
So, about what is more important to be viewed as “collective good” — there is no exact answer for that. You can synthesize that “people’s life is more important than state’s progress”; but that idea too may be challenged by others from different point of view.
…
As for me, it’s more to the utilitarianism principle. I.e., “collective good” is about everybody’s sum of happiness. So about your proposal, “people’s live is more important than the state’s progress”… I’ll say that it’s true to some extent. With note: those people must be able to live contently in the state, despite the state being less advanced than it can actually be.
Some people may disagree with it, however. But hey, that’s why discussion about ethics has been spanning for centuries, right?
[...] sendiri rada bingung ketika melakukan pendekatan semi-utilitarian yang umum saya pakai. Secara materi, tidak ada pihak yang rugi. Mengganggu sustainable source of [...]