Executive

Just what it means to be good is not exactly clear and I fear it never will nor should be. What is good? What is bad? It’s easy to give a simple answer. One might say, ‘To be good is to treat others with respect and live life with integrity.’ Another might say, ‘To be good is to live life like Jesus did; to love your fellow man and your God.’ Still another might say, ‘Good is a construct generated alongside the social contract to which we are all bound.’ My mother would probably say, ‘Be a good boy and take out the trash.’ The real question is, ‘who is right?’ Or maybe it’s, ‘are they all driving at something more general?’ Maybe none of them are correct (to my mother’s dismay). Or, maybe, maybe ‘correct’ just isn’t the right word. From where can we judge? It’s hard to analyze morality when you’re drawing from your own set of values. Maybe being objective about it is impossible or just really, really hard. Morality may just be relative rather than absolute to the dismay of many philosophers. A man who commits a series of murders without a sense of guilt is not subject to the same morality I experience. Why isn’t he subject to the same amount of guilt? Is it physiological? And if it is, why do we treat him although he’s done something wrong? If he was only acting out what he believed was right, or rather not wrong, then why should he be punished or ridiculed? These are hard questions and the answer that ‘majority rules’ just isn’t good enough although it is an intriguing answer. It’s possible that no answers will be found. It’s probable. But like the old sports adage goes: You can’t win if you don’t play.

That it’s an age old question is no wonder. Just when you feel like you’ve got a hold of the answer, you see the holes. Everyone does.