Talk:Good

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics

Religion Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Missing: Confucianism and Legalism[edit]

Confucianism and Legalism are missing from the history section.

Good point. I don't know anything about either of those traditions so I can't write it. I added a tag. --GHcool (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Hige-level Defenition[edit]

The current description of "Good" is not a clear definition but rather a use-case. The use-case does not objectively define the term "Good" for the majority of its uses. It is also not clear how to apply the term in any other case. Although the use-case can give the reader an intuition for using the term, it is not as useful as a comprehensive deterministic definition.

Below is the new proposed definition which is;
1. Deterministic,
2. Fully encapsulates the use of the term,
3. Falsifiable.

"The term "Good" is a subjective^[1] description of an action, event, person, or object which support the likelihood of survival and longevity of the group of people using the term^[2]. A person belonging to a group will intuitively leverage on his/her experience, indoctrination, and education to recognize direct or indirect support to their survival as individuals, as a member of the group^[3], and of the group itself. The person will then attribute the adjective "Good" to a subject when communicating with other members of the group. Since people often align themselves with multiple groups, the term "Good" is ambiguous."

Please feel free to share any comments and thoughts. BenYehooda (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Downgrade to C-class?[edit]

This article only describes the history of the concept of good in western philosophy. Eastern and other cultures' and philosophies' concepts are nearly completely omitted. I don't think this fits the standards for a B-class article. SolarCygnet (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Goodness[edit]

Shouldn't this article be moved to goodness to be consistent with other conceptual verbs like happiness? Roostery123 (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.quora.com/Whats-your-opinion-about-good-and-bad-Is-it-subjective

[2] ttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism

[3] ttps://www.inverse.com/article/52760-expert-explains-the-impact-of-total-isolation

[1]

[2]

[3]