Good

{{Short description|Concept in religion, ethics, and philosophy}}
{{Other uses}}
{{globalize|article|date=May 2019}}
[[Image:Lenz Entwurf zu einem Engel.jpg|125px|thumb|In many Abrahamic religions, [[angel]]s are considered to be good beings and are contrasted with [[demon]]s, who are considered as their evil contemporaries.]]
In most contexts, the concept of '''good''' denotes the conduct that should be preferred when posed with a choice between possible actions. Good is generally considered to be the opposite of [[evil]] and is of ethics, morality, philosophy, and religion. The specific meaning and etymology of the term and its associated translations among ancient and contemporary languages show substantial variation in its inflection and meaning, depending on circumstances of place and history, or of philosophical or religious context.

== History of Western ideas ==
{{Further|Form of the good|Origins of morality|Morality}}

Every language has a word expressing ''good'' in the sense of "having the right or desirable quality" ([[Arete (moral virtue)|ἀρετή]]) and ''bad'' in the sense "undesirable". A sense of [[morality|moral judgment]] and a distinction "right and wrong, good and bad" are [[cultural universals]].<ref>[[Donald Brown (anthropologist)|Donald Brown]] (1991) ''Human Universals''. Philadelphia, [[Temple University Press]] ([http://condor.depaul.edu/~mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm online summary]).</ref>

=== Plato and Aristotle ===
[[File:Socrates Pio-Clementino Inv314.jpg|right|thumb|150px|Bust of Socrates in the [[Vatican Museum]]]]
Although the history of the origin of the use of the concept and meaning of "good" are diverse, the notable discussions of Plato and Aristotle on this subject have been of significant historical effect. The first references that are seen in Plato's ''The Republic'' to the [[Form of the Good]] are within the conversation between [[Glaucon]] and [[Socrates]] (454c–d). When trying to answer such difficult questions pertaining to the definition of [[justice]], Plato identifies that we should not "introduce every form of difference and sameness in nature" instead we must focus on "the one form of sameness and difference that was relevant to the particular ways of life themselves”, which is the form of the Good. This form is the basis for understanding all other forms, it is what allows us to understand everything else. Through the conversation between Socrates and Glaucon (508a–c) Plato analogizes the form of the Good with the sun as it is what allows us to see things. Here, Plato describes how the sun allows for sight. But he makes a very important distinction, "sun is not sight", but it is "the cause of sight itself". As the sun is in the visible realm, the form of Good is in the [[Intelligibility (philosophy)|intelligible]] realm. It is "what gives truth to the things known and the power to know to the knower". It is not only the "cause of knowledge and truth, it is also an object of knowledge".
 
Plato identifies how the form of the Good allows for the cognizance to understand such difficult concepts as justice. He identifies knowledge and truth as important, but through Socrates (508d–e) says, "good is yet more prized". He then proceeds to explain that "although the good is not being" it is "superior to it in rank and power", it is what "provides for knowledge and truth" (508e).<ref name=Reeve>{{cite book|last=Plato|translator=C.D.C. Reeve|title=Republic|date=1992|publisher=Hackett Publ. Co|location=Indianapolis, Ind.|isbn=978-0-87220-136-1|edition=2nd}}</ref>

In contrast to Plato, [[Aristotle]] discusses the Forms of Good in critical terms several times in both of his major surviving ethical works, the ''[[Eudemian Ethics|Eudemian]]'' and ''[[Nicomachean Ethics]]''. Aristotle argues that Plato's Form of the Good does not apply to the physical world, for Plato does not assign "goodness" to anything in the existing world. Because Plato's Form of the Good does not explain events in the physical world, humans have no reason to believe that the Form of the Good exists and the Form of the Good thereby, is irrelevant to human ethics.<ref name=plat>{{cite book|last=Fine|first=Gail|title=Plato on Knowledge and Forms|url=https://archive.org/details/platoonknowledge00fine_595|url-access=limited|date=2003|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York|isbn=0-19-924559-2|pages=[https://archive.org/details/platoonknowledge00fine_595/page/n361 350]}}</ref>

Plato and Aristotle were not the first contributors in ancient Greece to the study of the "good" and discussion preceding them can be found among the pre-Socratic philosophers. In Western civilisation, the basic meanings of κακός and ἀγαθός are "bad, cowardly" and "good, brave, capable", and their absolute sense emerges only around 400 BC, with [[Pre-Socratic philosophy]], in particular [[Democritus]].<ref>[[Charles H. Kahn]], ''Democritus and the Origins of Moral Psychology'', The American Journal of Philology (1985)</ref> Morality in this absolute sense solidifies in the dialogues of [[Plato]], together with the emergence of [[monotheistic]] thought (notably in ''[[Euthyphro]]'', which ponders the concept of piety ([[:wikt:ὅσιος|τὸ ὅσιον]]) as a moral absolute). The idea is further developed in [[Late Antiquity]] by [[Neoplatonists]], [[Gnostics]], and [[Church Fathers]].

=== Ancient western religions ===
[[File:Faravahar.svg|thumb|right|[[Faravahar]] (or Ferohar), one of the primary symbols of Zoroastrianism, believed to be the depiction of a ''Fravashi'' (a guardian spirit)]]
{{Further|Zoroastrianism|Gnosticism}}
Aside from ancient Greek studies of the "good", more than twenty-five hundred years ago in the eastern part of ancient [[Greater Iran|Persia]] a religious philosopher called [[Zoroaster]] simplified the [[Pantheon (gods)|pantheon]] of early Iranian deities <ref name="Boyce_1979_6-12">{{harvnb|Boyce|1979|pp=6–12}}</ref> into [[Dualistic cosmology|two opposing forces]]: [[Ahura Mazda]] ([[Light (theology)|Illuminating]] [[Wisdom]]) and [[Angra Mainyu]] ([[devil|Destructive Spirit]]) that were in conflict.

For the western world, this idea developed into a religion that spawned many [[sect]]s, some of which embraced an extreme [[Dualistic cosmology|dualistic]] belief that the [[nature|material world]] should be shunned and the [[Sacred|spiritual world]] should be embraced. Gnostic ideas influenced many [[Ancient history|ancient]] religions,<ref>{{cite book |title=The Penguin Dictionary of Religion| year=1997|publisher=Penguin Books UK|author=John Hinnel}}</ref> which teach that ''[[gnosis]]'' (variously interpreted as [[Enlightenment in Buddhism|enlightenment]], [[salvation]], [[moksha|liberation]], or "oneness with God") may be reached by practising philanthropy to the point of personal poverty, [[sexual abstinence]] (as far as possible for ''[[wikt:disciple#Noun|hearers]]'' and totally for ''[[Initiation|initiates]]''), and diligently searching for [[wisdom]] by helping others.<ref name=gph>{{cite book |title=Gnostic Philosophy: From Ancient Persia to Modern Times|first=Tobias |last=Churton|publisher=Inner Traditions – Bear & Company |date=2005|isbn=978-159477-035-7}}</ref>

This development from the relative or habitual to the absolute is evident in the terms ''ethics'' and ''[[morality]]'' as well, both being derived from terms for "regional custom", Greek ἦθος and Latin ''mores'', respectively (see also ''[[:wikt:siðr|siðr]]'').

=== Medieval period in western cultures ===
{{Further|Christian philosophy}}
[[File:Saint Joseph's Catholic Church (Central City, Kentucky) - stained glass, St. Thomas Aquinas, detail.jpg|thumb|upright|A stained glass window of Thomas Aquinas in St. Joseph's Catholic Church ([[Central City, Kentucky]])]]
Medieval [[Christian philosophy]] was founded on the work of Bishop [[Augustine of Hippo]] and theologian [[Thomas Aquinas]], who understood evil in terms of [[Biblical infallibility]] and [[Biblical inerrancy]], as well as the influences of Plato and Aristotle, in their appreciation of the concept of the [[Summum bonum]]. Silent contemplation was the route to appreciation of the Idea of the Good.<ref>A. Kojeve, ''Introduction to the Reading of Hegel'' (1980) p. 108</ref>

Many medieval Christian theologians both broadened and narrowed the basic concept of ''Good and Evil'' until it came to have several, sometimes complex definitions such as:<ref>{{cite book |title=Good and Evil: Interpreting a Human Condition|author=Farley, E|publisher=Fortress Press / Vanderbilt University|year=1990|isbn=978-0800624477}}</ref> 
* a personal preference or subjective judgment regarding any issue that might earn [[praise]] or [[punishment]] from the [[Theocracy|religious authorities]]
* religious obligation arising from [[Divine law]] leading to [[saint|sainthood]] or [[damnation]] 
* a generally accepted [[Norm (social)|cultural standard]] of behaviour that might enhance group [[Human evolution (origins of society and culture)|survival]] or wealth
* [[natural law]] or behaviour that induces strong emotional reaction
* [[State (polity)|statute law]] imposing a legal [[duty]]

=== Modern concepts ===
==== Kant ====
{{main|Kant|Critique of Practical Reason}}
A significant enlightenment context for studying the "good" has been its significance in the study of "[[Transcendentals|the good, the true, and the beautiful]]" as found in [[Immanuel Kant]] and other Enlightenment philosophers and religious thinkers. These discussions were undertaken by Kant, particularly in the context of his ''[[Critique of Practical Reason]]''.

==== Rawls ====
[[John Rawls]]'s book ''[[A Theory of Justice]]'' prioritized social arrangements and goods, based on their contribution to [[justice]]. Rawls defined justice as ''fairness'', especially in distributing social goods, defined fairness in terms of procedures, and attempted to prove that just institutions and lives are good, if every rational individual's goods are considered fairly. Rawls's crucial invention was the [[original position]], a procedure in which one tries to make objective moral decisions by refusing to let personal facts about oneself enter one's moral calculations.

== Opposition to evil ==
{{main|Good and evil}}
In religion, ethics, and philosophy, "[[good and evil]]" is a very common [[dichotomy]]. In cultures with [[Manichaeism|Manichaean]] and [[Abrahamic religions|Abrahamic]] religious influence, evil is usually perceived as the antagonistic [[dualistic cosmology|opposite of good]]. Good is that which should prevail and evil should be defeated.<ref name="Paul O. Ingram 1986. P. 148-149">Paul O. Ingram, [[Frederick John Streng]]. ''Buddhist-Christian Dialogue: Mutual Renewal and Transformation''. University of Hawaii Press, 1986. P. 148-149.</ref> 

As a religious concept, basic ideas of a [[dichotomy]] between good and evil has developed in western cultures so that today:
* ''[[Good (religion)|Good]]'' is a broad concept, but it typically deals with an association with life, [[Charity (virtue)|charity]], continuity, happiness, love, and [[justice]]
* ''[[Evil]]'' typically is associated with conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological needs and dignity, destructiveness, and acts of unnecessary and/or indiscriminate violence <ref>Ervin Staub. ''Overcoming evil: genocide, violent conflict, and terrorism''. New York, New York, USA: Oxford University Press, Pp. 32.</ref>
* the dilemma of the [[human condition]] and their capacity to perform both good and evil activities <ref>{{cite book |chapter-url=http://www.worldtransformation.com/human-condition/ |chapter=The Human Condition |title=The Book of Real Answers to Everything! |first=Jeremy |last=Griffith |year=2011 |isbn= 9781741290073}}</ref>

[[File:Extermination of Evil Sendan Kendatsuba crop.jpg|thumb|right|350px|One of the five paintings of ''[[Extermination of Evil]]'' portrays one of the eight guardians of [[Buddhist law]], Sendan Kendatsuba, banishing evil.]]

== In Buddhism == 
In cultures with [[Buddhism|Buddhist]] spiritual influence, this antagonistic duality itself must be overcome through achieving ''[[Śūnyatā]]'', or emptiness. This is the recognition of good and evil not being unrelated, but two parts of a greater whole; unity, oneness, a [[Monism]].<ref name="Paul O. Ingram 1986. P. 148-149"/>

== In the field of biology ==
[[Morality]] is regarded by some biologists (notably [[E. O. Wilson|Edward O. Wilson]], [[Jeremy Griffith]], [[David Sloan Wilson]], and [[Frans de Waal]]) as an important question to be addressed by the field of biology.<ref>{{cite book |first=Edward Osborne |last=Wilson |author-link= E. O. Wilson |year= 2012 |title=The Social Conquest of Earth |publisher=W. W. Norton & Company |url=https://archive.org/details/socialconquestof0000wils |url-access=registration |isbn= 9780871404138}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last= Griffith |first=Jeremy |author-link=Jeremy Griffith |year=2011 |chapter=Good vs Evil |title=The Book of Real Answers to Everything! |isbn= 9781741290073 |chapter-url= http://www.worldtransformation.com/good-vs-evil/}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |first=Edward Osborne |last=Wilson |author-link= E. O. Wilson |year= 2007 |title=Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives |publisher=Random House Publishing |isbn= 9780385340922}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last= de Waal |first= Frans |author-link= Frans De Waal |year= 2012 |title= Moral behavior in animals |url= http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html |access-date= 2012-11-20 |archive-date= 2012-04-17 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120417212015/http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html |url-status= dead }}</ref>

== See also ==
{{div col|colwidth=30em}}
* [[Adiaphora]]
* [[Axiology]]
* [[Beneficence (ethics)|Beneficence]] (ethics)
* [[Beyond Good and Evil]] (Nietzsche)
* [[Common good]]
* [[Descriptive ethics]]
* [[Devil]]
* Ethics
* [[Evil]]
* [[Form of the Good]] (Plato)
* [[Graded absolutism]]
* [[Inductive reasoning]]
* [[Meta-ethics]]
* [[Moral absolutism]]
* [[Moral dilemma]]
* [[Moral realism]]
* [[Moral universalism]]
* [[Morality]]
* [[Non-physical entity]]
* [[Objectivist ethics|Objectivist theory of good and evil]]
* [[On the Genealogy of Morality]] (Nietzsche)
* [[Problem of evil]]
* [[Righteousness]]
* [[Sin]]
* [[Supreme good]]
* [[Tree of the knowledge of good and evil]]
* [[Utopia]]
* [[Value theory]]
* [[Welfarism]]
{{div col end}}

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== Further reading ==
{{refbegin}}
* Aristotle. "Nicomachean Ethics". 1998. USA: [[Oxford University Press]]. (1177a15)
* Bentham, Jeremy. ''The Principles of Morals and Legislation''. 1988. Prometheus Books.
* {{cite book |last=Boyce |first=Mary |title=Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices |location=London |publisher=Routledge/Kegan Paul |date=1979}} Corrected repr. 1984; repr. with new foreword 2001.
* Dewey, John. ''Theory of Valuation''. 1948. University of Chicago Press.
* Griffin, James. Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement and Moral Importance. 1986. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
* Hume, David. ''A Treatise of Human Nature''. 2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
* Hurka, Thomas. ''Perfectionism''. 1993. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
* Kant, Immanuel. ''Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals''. 1996. Cambridge University Press. Third section, [446]-[447].
* Kierkegaard, Søren. ''Either/Or''. 1992. [[Penguin Classics]].
* Rawls, John. ''A Theory of Justice''. 1999. Belknap Press.
* Ross, W. D. ''The Right and the Good''. 1930. Oxford University Press.
{{refend}}

== External links ==
*{{Commons category-inline}}
*{{wikiquote-inline}}

{{Good and evil}}
{{Ethics}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Good and evil| ]]
[[Category:Concepts in ethics]]
[[Category:Stereotypes]]
[[Category:Value (ethics)]]
[[Category:Concepts in metaphysics]]