Talk:Good

Missing: Confucianism and Legalism

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)

Proposed Hige-level Defenition

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 description of an action, event, person, or object which support the likelihood of survival and longevity of the group of people using the term. 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, 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)

Let's do it this way, "Good" is the opposite of evil, but it can also have a connotation of satisfaction

Exp: "That's good!"

But satisfaction is something subjective, what may be satisfactory for one person may not be satisfactory for someone else, likewise, what is good for someone may not be good for someone else — because there are opinion diversity, as you must know.

Therefore, the word "good" is not so accurate, because no matter how much someone believes that a certain thing is good, the other may not have that same perspective, so it ends up being: "Is this good or not? Or is it, but is it just me who thinks so? What can be considered good universally speaking?"

The fact is that it really is good, but because people think differently, it's not good, and in the end, it's all a matter of opinions. 177.105.94.73 (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Downgrade to C-class?

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)

Move to Goodness

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)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Good#c-Roostery123-20221007041900-Move_to_Goodness 178.86.29.240 (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)