-I see a contradiction between wishing to increase “freedom” (which is one hell of a loaded word, more on this later) and “well-being” (which again, is subject to interpretation) while wanting to subtract “suffering and misery”.

I content that happiness is not a state or a place, but “upwards movement on the wheel of life” (if you’ll permit a clunky metaphor). As such it has no meaning without suffering and misery.

I content that “well-being” is dangerously cultural. I believe the colonial powers of past times really believed they were helping the lowly peoples of earth better their standard of living and their “well-being”. A lot of good that did.

-On liberty, freedom and security:
I argue that there is an inverse correlation between Freedom and Security.

I also argue that a society who clearly chooses one over the other is bound for trouble (Anarchy vs Totalitarianism).

I contend that “well-being”, as defined by an individual’s relation to his society, requires a minimum of security. In other words, to get individuals to work together, you must restrict freedom in some way.

Now, that being said, I understand your intentions are good… and I feel I share them to a degree, but “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

I think the trick is refusing the temptation to believe there is one true way, refusing our universal urge to seek out a universal perspective in which everything works, makes sense, or is “Good” for all.

We are very good at confusing our mental model of reality for the “real thing”, but “The map is not the territory”.

I say:
Do what you think is good, and trust others to do the same.

Treat others like you want to be treated (and don’t overly worry when it’s not how others want to be treated).

You are an agent of change in the universe. You will create, modify and destroy what surrounds you, no matter what your intentions are.

You will be a hero and a villain, the victim and perpetrator.

For me, the only thing you can do to help is increase your awareness, of yourself, of others, and what ties us together.

Ça sonne comme une conversation fascinante à avoir après un Pied de Cochon, à moitié saoul sur le vin rouge…

I understand your point… I think by using a capital G on Good, I invoked the platonicist notion of Good, without really defining it. And I agree that when you hold Good, in any kind, above all else, you risk committing “Evil”, however you end up defining that capital E word.

I’m speaking of a more personal version of Good (perhaps I should say “good” and be done with it) which stems from a personal moral obligation to the world. So, let me try to define something which is non-ambiguous, even if the actual MEASURING of it is where you still end up with ambiguity.

Good: Raising the sum total of well-being and happiness in the world, either by adding to it by contributing to people’s happiness and freedom, or by substracting suffering and misery.

Key points of my definition of “good” is respecting and enhancing people’s freedom to be happy and to live lives they find fulfilling and meaningful.

Implicit in the concept is respect of other peoples’ liberties.

However much I try to apply relativism to this concept, I find that, say, helping build a house for people in a disaster area or helping with famine relief, has to somehow account into a notion of “good” that we can comfortably term absolute…

There, wanna poke a few holes in this?

Après avoir travaillé sur trois titres Tom Clancy et dernièrement Far Cry 2 (mercenaire dans une zone de conflit africaine), je me demande s’il aurrais moyen de mettre à profits mes talents pour autres chose que des foutus jeux de guerres.

J’y pense depuis un bout de temps !!!

Le premier truc qui me vient en tête serais de former une agence de com/pub/web qui aiderais bénévolement les organismes à but non lucratif. En fait, ca doit probalement déjà exister, Google time.

Y a aussi la perspective de développer un concept de jeu éducatif/écolo/utile, mais je doute du potentiel marketing. Il faudrais un super concept. Quelqu’un a une idée?

How do you define “Good”?
How do you define the subset that contains all individuals to which “Good” must be done? (ie All humans? All humans who share your will to “Goodness”? All living things?)

I’m one of those annoying relativists who argue that in many (if not most) cases, one man’s devil is another man’s angel (the use of religious terminology is quite voluntary).

I would even go so far as to say that your sentiment, which is, without a doubt noble, has been the primary motivator for all prophets (for better or for worse)

All religions, to me, are the result of trying to codify what “Good” is supposed to be and “who you should be Good to” in an unequivocal way.

So, I say: be yourself, whatever that maybe, if you must believe in something without evidence, have faith in other humans.

Alex
-It is my firm belief that it is a mistake to hold firm beliefs