I am (good) to you because you (mean) to me

Many of us would have probably heard of the phrase: “he is not a good man” or “she is a very good girl”. While taking a taxi, we may have said to our taxi drivers “please take the best route to the destination”; even as we go shopping, we would have uttered: “I don’t want… it’s of no good to me”. There are many more instances we would have uttered, or realized similar phrases in our lives- but I’ll leave the details to individual discernment and personal reflection. On a side note, please do bear in mind these three statements, as we will be re-visiting them periodically throughout this post itself.

Now, on first glance we see that all these statements do have a similar ring to them. While it is almost obvious that these statements are daily utterances by the layman i.e. they are not exclusive to the theories of a psychedelic philosopher and can be picked up by almost everyone; we can also evidently see that all these statements have a common allusion to the concept of relative goodness. The girl (in paragraph 1) is evidently ‘better’ than the ‘bad’ man to at least a person. There is a route among the man routes that is fundamentally good to the passenger (not for the taxi driver though…), and as for our third statement- it is evident that the customer would have a notion on what merchandise is good to her.

We would have been more than aware by now that such relative goodness to man, as the name suggests, is relative in nature and is arbitrarily assigned by man to en-value the items related to him. In our common world, this is the other goodness that we speak of, apart from the metaphysical goodness religion advocates that “God is good and love is good”. We also know that these two types of goodness are in essence one, linked subtly from the theory of subjectivity and objectivity (and determinism). Yet these linkages remain vague and idealistic. If the concept of goodness is in essence one with the concept of meaning, then how does our above ‘goods’ be reconciled with our lofty topics of free will, qualia of living, soulfulness, and metaphysical meaning  in light of creation?

On a more direct note, what does it actually mean to be ‘good’ to the people around us?

Do pause and re-consider the above statements. While it may not be obvious to state, it is subtly implied in all three statements that the qualification of goodness of the subject (the two people, and the route) is actually their meaning with respect to the proponent (the person making that statement). We would have been familiar with the aphorism: one man’s meat may be another man’s poison, and from this some of us would thus have concluded before that goodness must have a relativistic aspect. True enough, much of the conventional views of our society are based on a subjectivist basis- since all propositions from a subject must be fundamentally subjective. We may claim our views to be objective and in line with the truthful nature of reality, however in part 1 of project RN (T) we have already established that such recognition of objectivity is actually the correspondence theory of acquiring truth.

Even if such views of goodness, like any other theories of truth, remain subjective (we must understand that truth and goodness are transcendental in nature, and one may not take precedence over the other. So much as there is goodness of truth, there is also the truth of goodness); it is still not up to our fanciful whims to arbitrarily impose our views with respect to the objective good. Although it may make logical sense if a strong argument is presented for the justification of rape or murder, yet the natural law of self preservation, if not the natural evolution of the society to maintain order and progress, sets in objectively to limit the validity of such a claim. We would then classify such justifications to be a logical fallacy, and the conclusions untruth.  Similarly, what we define as good must be based on what is natural, what is decreed (for the theist, the truly natural way to life is decreed by God), and also what is convicted.

Of course the progress of humankind, insofar, has tailed rather dutifully to this delicate balance between subjectivity and objectivity. While religion had reigned in the past as a primarily means of invoking such a balance, the outcome of such a balance, known to us as formally as human values, sets the general framework for the set of righteous activities tolerated, appreciated and subsequently venerated by man. Indeed, through the ages we have seen activities such as share, hope, trust and most importantly love being values exonerated, apart from bravery, hardiness and even cash (I'll dwell into these details in part 6). we have now returned back to our premise that humans value what is innately good to them back in part 4- yet we will be paying more attention to how these human values are congruent to the concepts of goodness we have introspected insofar.

We know that not every statement of goodness is a human value. There is no prescribed human value to judge, or justify the precise value of a particular person or identity. We cannot universally condemn a person, or exonerate him- partially due to the reason of free will (to change), and the higher determinism (which we know now is actually the physical manifestation of what we conventionally deem as God’s plan. It is also in this respect we can see why no human be able to judge his neighbor- out of our imperfect view of truth, and our lack of authority to go against this plan). Yet we must understand that each of these statements is still, as with the formal definition of ‘value’, a qualitative assessment.

Now, as we en-label such qualitative statements unto each other (during the process of living) to en-value their ‘goodness’; as we compare the personality of the boy next door in comparison to our more-or-less objective set of human values (i.e. love, care, etc); it is in actual fact on this basis of subjective (relative) qualitative assessment we emplace upon each other that makes us ‘good’ or ‘bad’ so as to speak. It is on this assessment of meaning to us that we qualify the goodness of a human, and a taxi route.

Now some of us may begin to object. Consciously, we appreciate the objective goodness of all man. Surely, it may sound a little too harsh to claim that our conventional goodness is no more than a claim of meaning no different to that of a taxi route? Humans are definitely not comparable to taxi routes or merchandise in a departmental store. Yet as we refer back to the first three lines of this post, why had we not seen a stark contrast between the first statement and the subsequent two statements? If the concept of goodness as applied to man, subconsciously in our daily lives, is inherently different from the goodness of other objects to us, then we would not have even seen sense in from the start of this post.

What then is the moral of the story?

Very importantly, we must stress the fact that there is in essence no difference between the goodness of man and the goodness of all other things. Goodness is the universal standard of qualia and meaning, and all things that functions under determinism- be it natural or man-made, must have an associated qualia and meaning, be it to the eyes of man, or ultimately to the eyes of God. Henceforth, to put the goodness of man apart from other goodness would inadvertently allude to a double standard of goodness, which cannot manifest.

As we re-affirm once more that this view of goodness is only limited to the relative meaning to man, we now state a very crucial claim that what defines itself as good or meaningful, is partially based on the amount of meaning it poses to the people around it. While someone tells us that “you are so good to me”, this is synonymous to the statement “to me, you mean a lot”. While we consider the goodness of people around us, we are in actual fact comparing them- their lifestyles, based on our personal values. From here, what we actually deem as a good person is actually a person who means very much alike our personal values, our personal characters, and our ideals… very much congruent to how we see the good taxi route as a route that means alike to our agendas for a speedy and safe trip.

Now, such a definition naturally imposes an issue. If what we see, decide, and be is as good as how we view ourselves and each other, then how is it possible for us to be a better person? The earlier statement of one man’s meat be another man’s poison would have quelled all attempts to improve in goodness and meaning, since as we mean more to some we might mean less to others. To be fiercely independent would be a good thing for society in general, since it allows the individual to be able to withstand the hardships of life and excel without dependence, yet on the basis of love (to his parents) such independence would only mean the end of trust, sharing and concern.  How then are we supposed to become better, and ultimately, seek the living best to life?

We have stated that all things have its conventional goodness with respect to the meaning to man. We have also stated that all things too have an objective goodness, or the true metaphysical meaning (to God). The goodness of a ourselves how we behave, and feedback from society- yet innately we know that our true goodness, and the qualia of our lives go beyond our thoughts, feelings and behaviours. It is in this recognition of objective goodness humanists argue the sanctity of life regardless of social status and norms. Now, we have claimed many times before that such two are linked by the permutations of determinism, which leads to free choice and subjectivity. Now, if correspondence theory holds, and we ought correspond our subjective view of goodness to the objective good, then naturally- the progression of goodness has to be from the subjective to the objective.

 Meaning? (no puns intended)

It is no coincidence that Jesus had raised a parable: a man, no matter how bad he is, will not give a stone to his son should his son ask for bread, or a scorpion, if he asks for a fish. Now, if we were to introspect this statement with respect to subjective goodness, we see that no matter how objectively ‘nasty’ the man may be, his domain of personal meaning (i.e. the domain of things that mean to him) includes the well-being of his son. To him, his son is good, and to his son- he is still good. Yet as we question why he gives a scorpion to the kid next door when asked for fish-balls, we see that this is fundamentally because the neighbor’s child does not mean anything to him. It is in this lack of meaning results in a subsequent alienation of things that are fundamentally good, that brings about the distance between the goodness of the self (perception) and the objective goodness of all things.

So we continue along with the parable- we see that if the man was to ‘become a better person’, we naturally expect him to be more kindly to people around him: to respect them as they are and be in peace with them. As the phrase 'do unto others what u wish others would do unto you' comes into mind, we see that such expansion of meaning of others grows with respect to the meaning of oneself (recall part 3: the balance between the self and the neighbor). It is then from this gradual expansion of meaning that one begins to accommodate and show concern. This subjective expansion of meaningful domains would grow, and it is from such an expansion subsequent goodness is truly achieved.

And finally God, in his infinite goodness, sees meaning in all creation- down to taking care of the littlest of things.

Of course, the full mechanism of the acquisition of goodness is far more complex than such an empiricist claim. We know for a fact that true goodness cannot be qualified by mere description, and surely such an attempt would prove far from satisfactory in addressing such profound issues. Yet nevertheless, as we model how our conventional goodness is related to the this idealistic objective goodness that we speak about- and at the same time see a possible method of becoming better through the expansion of meaning via the correspondence theory of truth; hopefully from such technicalities may spring forth a higher realization to what it means to be good, and hopefully, what it takes to live the living best and the meaning of life.