From: utzoo!watmath!cbostrum
Newsgroups: net.religion
Title: On a Proposed Defn of Good
Article-I.D.: watmath.4845
Posted: Tue Apr  5 14:44:56 1983
Received: Tue Apr  5 23:50:36 1983

     'good': That which benefits a sentient being, in the final opinion of
             that sentient being.
     'evil': That which harms a sentient being, in the final opinion of
             that sentient being.
                                   Eric J. Wilner
                                   sdcsvax!sdccsu3!ee163cz
You must be joking. (You said "semi-serious"?). Which sentient being? You
mean "good for X" is "that which benefits X..."?  This is obviously 
not a definition of "good" does not have a parameter on it. "Good" is
good and bad for everyone, cutting across individual distinctions. An
example of a more sensible theory of good would be:
	X is Good iff God approves of X.
The above proposed theory is just incoherent. It doesnt even pretend to define
"good". In fact, since I dont know your opinion, and you dont know mine, a
consequence of this definition is that ethical disagreement is **impossible**!
For if you say "X is good", meaning "X is good for me" and I say "X is bad"
meaning "X is bad for me" we are not contradicting one another. Good and Bad
are *not** supposed to be matters of personal taste.