Are we wrong in doing good?

[Iskatehard]

This post will be a short version of my idea.. You can get more details in my blog, if you would like. Anyway.

I've been paying a lot of thought to natural balance in preferences and subjective value. More and more I am sure that something can't be beautiful unless there is something equally ugly. There can't be something that tastes amazing unless there is something that tastes absolutely fucking terrible. Essentially meaning the concept of "good and bad" are one in the same. While they might seem different at first thought, they greatly depend on each other in order to exist within the human mind.

This leads me to feel somewhat shallow for appreciating that which is good so much.. Why should I only appreciate that which is good and not pay any respect to that which is bad? Because without the bad, I could never see the good in anything. Without feeling sad, I could never feel happy. You always need two opposites to compare to each other, and that's what leads me to my idea here..

It seems a general practice of society to generate good and preserve that which is good. And at the same time, try to get rid of as much bad as possible.. But by the theoretical law of balance in nature, this isn't possible.

In creating something with a sense of beauty.. Am I not also creating the sense of ugly for the audience? So.. When we do something we consider good.. Don't we pay equal effort to doing something bad, in a way?

Now, before you disagree, consider this in a new sense of depth, if you will. I can do an act that is good.. And that doesn't directly create evil perhaps, no. But look at it like this:

You have a single piece of are in existence. By only having one with nothing to compare it to, it is completely neutral in itself. Now, you add another piece of art, so now you have two. Now you can say "Yes, this piece is much better than the other. This one is good, and the other is bad.." Simple enough, yeah? Now, consider you add TWO more pieces of art into existence. And these two new pieces are incredibly better than the prior two. Now you can say "these are amazing, the other two, however... Bleh". In this, that second added piece that was initially considered "good" now becomes "bad". And that stands true even though nothing changed within the specific piece of art itself.


So, you see what I mean? By doing good and even raising the standard of "good, you also pay equal contribution to evil and the standard of "bad".


So.. With this in mind.. Can we really ever do an act that is good? If we like that which is good... Perhaps we should do things that are bad? Just for the sake of making the good things even better. But whatever you choose to do, you will end up with a completely balanced reality, completely neutral. Thus, all that effort you placed in order to do good or bad, it was completely in vein...

Maybe we should say to hell with preference. The hell with good and bad, and beautiful and ugly. To hell with appreciation! Why don't we become solely neutral in ourselves, so we don't act in circles and completely waste effort? Wouldn't we be better off in conditions of living and such? Wouldn't we be so much more efficient?


*Note: Yes, I understand that which is "good" and "bad" is completely objective and dependent on the audience. But think of it more extroverted, if you will. I'm wanting to see focus being paid the the natural balance, rather than simply shrugging the topic off as it's "subjective", you know? Thanks. (but if you do feel that there is in fact no natural balance law imposed by the nature of reality, do say and explain)

[Marevix]

I'm going to go ahead and say that this subjectivity doesn't matter. More good is more good, and the lack of "bad" to contrast means little more than an elevation in standards; this is a positive thing in my opinion. It doesn't matter if you don't appreciate the positive aspects in life if the negative aspects don't exist.

[riskitforabiscuit]

I tried to stop myself from saying this as I probably look like a complete ass, but can you please use less paragraphs in your posts? You don't need a new one every sentence or two. Thank you.

[Roboman]

Good and bad aren't COMPLETELY relative though. Because not all good and bad is determined by comparisons. Good and bad are mostly defined by pleasure or displeasure, and those things aren't completely judged by comparisons.

If there was a thing that always lived in sadness, it wouldn't feel 'neutral' just because it hasn't experienced happiness before. Sadness as an emotion or a feeling is intrinsically bad. Happiness or sadness is the end result, that is usually reached by evaluating the rest of your experiences. So if something was sad all the time, it would still feel negative. Happiness / sadness is the measure itself.

[salvemaster]

Good and bad aren't COMPLETELY relative though. Because not all good and bad is determined by comparisons. Good and bad are mostly defined by pleasure or displeasure, and those things aren't completely judged by comparisons.

If there was a thing that always lived in sadness, it wouldn't feel 'neutral' just because it hasn't experienced happiness before. Sadness as an emotion or a feeling is intrinsically bad. Happiness or sadness is the end result, that is usually reached by evaluating the rest of your experiences. So if something was sad all the time, it would still feel negative. Happiness / sadness is the measure itself.

Well that's a relative statement in itself. I agree that sadness is intrinsically negative, but then again, i can't help but think that maybe evolution could have effected that in some way. Idk, i might have the wrong idea on evolution though.

But other than that, you could argue that if you were born into sadness then it would be neutral, seeing as you have nothing else to compare it too. I know that that's assuming the opposite point of relativity, and that point could be argued all day from two different standpoints, but the fact is that it would be a technically indifferent emotion.

I agree that happiness and sadness are results in that they are the feelings themselves, but relative to what else you feel, being born into sadness is essentially the same as being born into happiness because in both scenarios, the emotion is irrelevant.

But don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that the two emotions are the same in quality, because there's really no similarity in the way they make you feel. But in theory, i suppose good and bad are completely relative because you can't really label one without understanding the other.

You can feel 'positive,' because that's the feeling in itself, if you follow. But i don't think it's really 'positive' unless you know what 'negative' is. So 'good' in itself is just a relatively positive version of neutral. It's not really 'good' until it's 'bad.' Idk, it depends on how you look at it.

[Roboman]

Simple happiness can be measured by the amount of endorphins in the brain. Most happiness is complex, like satisfaction and stuff, needs information to determine whether you feel good or bad about it.

If you have endorphins, you feel happy. At this basic level, the brain doesn't make a comparison to all the former amounts of endorphins to see whether it is relatively worse or better than it has ever been. That level is the happiness itself. If the endorphins are there, the creature will feel happy regardless of whether it should or not, irrespective of past amounts or comparisons.

This is a little off topic, but there was an experiment done when mice had electrodes attached to their brains. When triggered, it released endorphins in its brain. There was a pressable switch in the enclosure with the mouse (along with food, bed etc.) that triggered the endorphin release. Once the mouse discovered it, it kept pressing the button, as it was instant unaltered happiness to the mouse. It just kept pressing the button, didn't eat or sleep, until it died. And it probably died the happiest mouse alive.

Sure you can't label one without the other, but it doesn't stop one from existing just because you've never encountered the other.

I agree with your point that most good and bad is relative, but not all. Such as happiness and sadness at its simplest level. Good and bad are just very oversimplified descriptions, I don't think they can be measured so easily at all. As soon as opinions come into it then its too difficult I think.

This whole thing sort of reminds me of Plato's Forms haha.

[Zero_Blood]

i kind of understand what your getting at, but we cant just get rid of good and bad preference. its mostly not comparison, but opinion.

[The Sinistral]

we don't need to appreciate the bad in order to see the good. we really don't even need to consider it (the bads.). we simply need to acknowledge that the "bad" exists in the world, and that in order to live a life of happiness, most people need "goods."

[Skateselect]

in youre example where you used art, you could say that these two are good, but these two are better. i mean, just because one thing is better than another doesnt make the other bad.

how bout this (cause this is a skateboarding website):
somebody kickflips a 21 stair. this is obviously perceived as a good thing
if someone goes and frontside flips it, does that make the kickflip bad? i dont think so

[Iskatehard]

We might not feel we need to "appreciate" the bad to see the good.. But we certainly have to experience it. If you want to label magnitudes of emotions with numbers, for discussion sake.. You couldn't have a happiness that's level 10, for example, without also having a moment of sadness that is also a level of 10. I mean, I don't think you can feel a sense of happiness that is stronger than any sense of sadness you've ever felt.

As for the skateboarding example.. A frontside flip down a 21 set doesn't specifically make the kickflip down it bad.. But it does take away from the over all "awe" factor of it, if you will, which is like taking away from the "good" of it.

If you see a kickflip down a 21, it could blow your mind. And then if you see a fs flip down a 21, it could make you totally "holly fuck".

But if you see a fronside flip down the 21 FIRST, and then the kickflip, the kickflip down the 21 will not seem as impressive because humans naturally compare things in order to calculate their value, if you will.

And what I'm saying.. If you do something incredibly good, those who see it or are involved in it will later apply it to other situations in life. Thus causing them to have less "appreciation" for another good act (of less magnitude than your act) they encounter by comparison. However, if they rather encountered the said good act BEFORE seeing your good act, they might think of it as more "good" than they did would had they experienced it after your incredibly good act.

And to speak on my example concerning art. If you only had four pieces of art in existence.. How could you say these are good, but those are better? I don't think you could view something as good unless you could view a different piece as bad.

[Skateselect]

maybe im too positive in this sense haha

[salvemaster]

So i was just mowing the lawn and this thought hit me, and i can't believe i didn't think of this metaphor before.

In musical theory, there are essentially two scales; major and minor. All the other modal and experimental scales and diatonic chord sequences are just variations of those two scales. Now,here's how this ties into the balance between good and evil.

Major and minor are different in just about every aspect; triad composure, pattern of half steps in their respective scale, chord qualities and timbres, and the overall way it can make you feel. But through all of this, neither could exist without the other.

If you play the major scale of A starting on A and ending on A, it will sound upbeat, happy. But if you take that scale and, instead of starting on A, you started on the 6th scale degree (F#) and ended on the 6th scale degree (F#), then it would sound gloomy, sad.

Why? Because all a (natural) minor scale is is a major scale played on a different starting note, and vice-versa. It's the same scale, just a different tonic, yet they are different in every aspect of sound interpretation.

(No one can say Beethoven's 'sonata 14' in C# minor is a happy opus, but if you were to repeatedly play an E over it, it would sound completely different, it would become E major. It may sound a bit strange because the chords would be centered around C#-'s I, IV, and IVs, but the fact remains; it is all relative to which note the artist decides to make tonic).

So these two opposites are essentially the same. Neither could exist without the other. I guess good and evil are like that too. You can't have one with out the other. They are the same thing, just expressed and interpreted inversely.

[Iskatehard]

Yeah, that's what I think.. I sort of have a hard time understanding how people can claim you can have one without the other.. Because just like with the musical scales.. A note wouldn't be considered major if there were never a minor to opposite it, if that makes sense.

So nothing could be good if there were no bad, and such. Thus, you couldn't recognize one without the other.. And I think because of this we should appreciate both, and it would seem in doing a good thing, you also create a "bad" sense in ways, if that makes any sense. Weird to think about.. And almost makes me feel like simply trying to be good or bad is just a waste of time

[salvemaster]

I think we should do what we think is right, and that'll balance itself out in the end as good or bad. Idk, i get what you're saying, and the futility of trying to do good or bad is all the more reason to just try and do good. Whatever though, yaknow?

[Iskatehard]

Yeah, I mean.. I still think we should try to do more good than anything else.. But I also feel like we should recognize that our actions will naturally have an equal amount of bad to it by nature, sorta. Thus sort of like.. When some bad shit happens to you, you don't get all "Fucking unfair man, that's gay" or some shit like that.. I think because of this balance we should look at things that are bad with a little more appreciation rather than sheer resentment. We have to understand that the bad happens for a reason, if you will.. And that 'reason' is good. And vice verse of course

I mean, we can't just avoid them all together a lot of times.. But in some situations it really might be the best thing to try to do, but eh, I don't personally think I have that sort of self control if you know what I mean.