Is Something Good because we say it is good, or is something good independent of what we think about it?

Kerry from Glenbervie

I’m starting a new thread here because an issue arose that has not been explored in relation to David Arlidge’s recent discussion: Is marriage dead as a social institution? Or is there an elephant in the room?

The reality that, as David pointed out, this institution has held such a great influence on human culture over such a vast period of history and over such diverse cultures cannot reasonably be denied. What also cannot reasonably be denied is the reality that at least in our culture, and perhaps that of wider Western civilization this institution is rapidly losing favour as a social more.

David’s view, (as is mine, though for different reasons) is that this was not a good thing.

And I think it might be fair to say that, just as the first black President of the United States was ushered in as a defining moment of racial equality in American politics, so too in New Zealand we have reached a pivotal moment in our own political history.

While we may be basking in the sunshine of sexual equality having our third female Prime Minister, we no doubt have moved firmly still further into liberal ideology having our first Prime Minister who is both unmarried and expecting her first child. I think that David’s thread amply demonstrated that people observed this as a good thing. That this was a sign of a moral “coming of age” when a political leader could accomplish the pinnacle of political aspirations, and remain unmarried, and all without censure or misgivings by any group with political clout. Those who responded to the thread seem to reflect the views of the wider population at least according to media portrayal.

What hasn’t changed is that we still universally describe these changes in terms of being “good” or “better” or “worse” or “bad”. In other words we still recognize these changes as questions of moral significance.

The question of how we arrive at whether something is good or bad is the question I would like to explore in this thread. I hope this strikes you as an important question. If the question of marriage assumes such importance, then surely a question of our basis for all moral questions must assume value an order of magnitude greater again? If it is important to give a hungry man a fish, who tomorrow will be hungry again, is it not so much more important to teach him how to fish! I think sometimes our reaction to this is: “Well to marry or not to marry is immediately available to my experience, the question of our basis for morality is so esoteric, so beyond what I’m used to thinking about, I don’t think I can participate, I’m not qualified nor interested.” Just remember that the law chooses a jury of ordinary people who have a sense of civic duty to decide the fate of alleged murderers who stand to lose their freedom for a very long time. Well I hope this topic will be of interest, and not at all out of reach.

To that end, I want to comment on some things which were missed in the previous discussion, so first some housekeeping: