4 ms·

> First of all, what makes a thing a good thing? A good thing fulfils its unique function. Like a nuclear weapon?

by quonn 2y ago

pavlovsgods 2y ago
Aristotle's conception of the goodness of a thing (which is not convincingly conveyed by the author) is essentially normatively neutral; a good knife qua knife for Aristotle is one that cuts well as a good nuclear weapon is one which is destructive. Using a nuclear weapon might not be good but just as a gun might be well-designed without being well-used I don't think it is too normatively concerning to be able to identify something as being a good example of its kind (a well-designed nuclear weapon), though I could be wrong!
johanbcn 2y ago
If blasting other nations is your thing, then sure, why not?
- quonn 2y ago
  Yeah, and that's why I'm doubting this definition is very useful. Aristoteles should also have gotten a chicken plucked on the market square ...
arethuza 2y ago
The US is apparently retaining components of some large H-bomb designs for "potential planetary defense purposes" - wouldn't that be a "good" function? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B53_nuclear_bomb#Role https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B53_nuclear_bomb#Role
somenameforme 2y ago
The author was referring to good as in quality, not the good/evil dichotomy.
throw0101d 2y ago
>> First of all, what makes a thing a good thing? A good thing fulfils its unique function. > Like a nuclear weapon? If the device in question sets off uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction, then yes, it is good for its purpose as a nuclear weapon. You are asking/implying: is the nuclear weapon's purpose good (in the first place)? Something can be good for its purpose (e.g., electric chair [0]), but the good/badness of that purpose is a separate question. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_chair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_chair
geye1234 2y ago
A nuke can be good considered in itself (effective at leveling a city), and bad considered in relation the person who presses the button and thereby commits mass murder. It is the latter that makes nuking a city a bad deed.
iammrpayments 2y ago
The ultimate goal of a nuclear a weapon (as of any weapon) is to keep peace. As it is said in the art of war, the good general is the one who wins without having to draw his sword. So a good nuclear weapon is one that you will never need to use.
- nathan_compton 2y ago
  "The ultimate goal of a nuclear a weapon (as of any weapon) is to keep peace." This certainly does not seem obvious to me. It seems eminently arguable that the ultimate goal of a weapon is to make someone else do what you want or eliminate them or punish them if they do not. Or the ultimate goal of a weapon is to kill something to eat it. Or other stuff. When the first ape-map picked up the first jaw bone with the intent of bashing in another person's head, I doubt he was thinking "I'm looking forward to keeping this peace with this."

> First of all, what makes a thing a good thing? A good thing fulfils its unique function. Like a nuclear weapon?

by quonn 2y ago

> First of all, what makes a thing a good thing? A good thing fulfils its unique function. Like a nuclear weapon?

Aristotle's conception of the goodness of a thing (which is not convincingly conveyed by the author) is essentially normatively neutral; a good knife qua knife for Aristotle is one that cuts well as a good nuclear weapon is one which is destructive. Using a nuclear weapon might not be good but just as a gun might be well-designed without being well-used I don't think it is too normatively concerning to be able to identify something as being a good example of its kind (a well-designed nuclear weapon), though I could be wrong!

johanbcn 2y ago

If blasting other nations is your thing, then sure, why not?

quonn 2y ago
Yeah, and that's why I'm doubting this definition is very useful. Aristoteles should also have gotten a chicken plucked on the market square ...

arethuza 2y ago

The US is apparently retaining components of some large H-bomb designs for "potential planetary defense purposes" - wouldn't that be a "good" function? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B53_nuclear_bomb#Role https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B53_nuclear_bomb#Role

somenameforme 2y ago

The author was referring to good as in quality, not the good/evil dichotomy.

throw0101d 2y ago

>> First of all, what makes a thing a good thing? A good thing fulfils its unique function. > Like a nuclear weapon? If the device in question sets off uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction, then yes, it is good for its purpose as a nuclear weapon. You are asking/implying: is the nuclear weapon's purpose good (in the first place)? Something can be good for its purpose (e.g., electric chair [0]), but the good/badness of that purpose is a separate question. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_chair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_chair

geye1234 2y ago

A nuke can be good considered in itself (effective at leveling a city), and bad considered in relation the person who presses the button and thereby commits mass murder. It is the latter that makes nuking a city a bad deed.

iammrpayments 2y ago

The ultimate goal of a nuclear a weapon (as of any weapon) is to keep peace. As it is said in the art of war, the good general is the one who wins without having to draw his sword. So a good nuclear weapon is one that you will never need to use.

nathan_compton 2y ago
"The ultimate goal of a nuclear a weapon (as of any weapon) is to keep peace." This certainly does not seem obvious to me. It seems eminently arguable that the ultimate goal of a weapon is to make someone else do what you want or eliminate them or punish them if they do not. Or the ultimate goal of a weapon is to kill something to eat it. Or other stuff. When the first ape-map picked up the first jaw bone with the intent of bashing in another person's head, I doubt he was thinking "I'm looking forward to keeping this peace with this."