A Concept of Good in Pantheism
Ever since I read this, and had so much trouble with the author's concept of good in a pantheistic setting (how can "goodness" factor into a philosophy that denies anthropomorphism or an external deity?), I've been wondering where "good" might factor into my own concept of pantheism.
So, for my first trick (which will undoubtedly fall flat), I'll try to define "good."
If "good" were an easy concept, it wouldn't have been a continual preoccupation of philosophers ever since ancient Greece. What is good? Is it virtue (and then what's virtue)? Is it a moral thing, an aesthetic thing? Who decides what's good? What if something's good for me but not for you; is it still good?
To me, goodness falls into three categories (there are probably more, but I can't think of 'em): Aesthetic, beneficial (or possibly economic), and moral.
Aesthetic goodness is anything that makes us "feel good." That can include sex, rainbows, sunsets, walks on the beach, watching a thunderstorm, listening to Mozart, reading a pageturner, and so on. It doesn't have to have a moral component to it, though moral goodness often has an aesthetic component to it. (When someone performs a charitable act, it can be said that "they did a beautiful thing.")
Beneficial goodness isn't entirely moral, although, again, moral goodness usually benefits someone. I'm talking mostly about natural good, like rain or sun or an abundance of resources. Rain, for instance, is said to be a good thing, though too much of it can be very bad. Same with sun or wind or any other resource. A balanced economy is as good as a balanced ecosystem. Goodness in this sense describes anything that benefits someone.
Moral good includes aesthetic and beneficial good, and sometimes (confusingly) overshadows them. Mostly, it's about living in such a manner that your actions either do not harm, or in fact actively help, those whose lives you affect. Putting naked women on display might be aesthetically pleasing to some people, but if the women aren't willing to be display pieces, it's morally wrong because it harms the women. Even though robbing a bank might be good for your pocketbook, it's morally wrong, because it negatively affects everyone that you've stolen from.
Where moral good gets confusing is when agent perception, our animistic tendencies, step in. A storm comes along and destroys our crops, and therefore God is punishing us for our sins. Execution by beheading, hanging, and the electric chair have been declared barbaric, not necessarily because they are less efficient or less painful than the gas chamber or lethal injection, but because they are a much uglier and more shocking affair.
But there's something here that really ties all of these ideas of "goodness" together. All of these ideas relate specifically to us. What is beautiful (and therefore good) to us; what is beneficial (and therefore good) to us; what is moral (and therefore good) to us. Us being humanity, as opposed to skunks or spiders or elm trees or aliens.
We are actually developing a concept of "good" that includes animals and nature. But that still relates to humans, and what we judge to be good. Environmentalism is not actually concerned with letting nature take its course; environmentalism is concerned with preserving what it sees as a natural status quo. Unfortunately, nature does not have a status quo. A balanced ecosystem may be good, but ecosystems don't balance themselves by growing pretty flowers and playing pretty music; they balance themselves through catastrophe. Climate change is the global system balancing itself catastrophically.
If we really wanted a balanced global ecosystem, we wouldn't be trying to moderate climate change, we'd want it to take its course as quickly as possible. But we want as much of that status quo in our generation, and our children's generations, as we can get, because we're essentially self-centered. (Not necessarily egotistical; self-centered as human-centered, self-centered as "This is what I find good, so I want to preserve it.")
When we talk about environmental good, we're talking about the plants and animals who live in whatever ecosystem. We're considering them as though they were alive (which they are), and had feelings (which at least animals do), and were capable of suffering (which animals certainly are; and though it's a far cry from neurology, there's beginning to be some evidence that plants are capable of gathering information). That's a HUGE step for us as human beings, considering that a few hundred years ago hardly anyone batted an eye at live animal vivisection. But we're still capable of making monumental blunders, mostly because we're making human judgments.
When we think about what's good for the skunks, spiders, and elm trees, we're essentially putting ourselves in their place. That's how we make moral judgments, through sympathy. It takes a lot of brain power to stop thinking like a human and try to get into the mind of even a dog. (As evidenced by the fact that far too many dogs are treated like children instead of like canines.) What would environmentalism be like, if it were run by dogs? Or, say, roaches?
All this is to say that, no matter what your definition of "good" is, it's a human definition. We don't know for certain what a roach would define "good" as, though it's a good bet it wouldn't match up with our definition very much, if at all. A dog's definition might be more similar, though there would still probably be some major disagreement. (Let's have lots more trees and fire hydrants! Yeah!)
How, then, can we possibly talk about any sort of truly universal good?
The answer is, we can't. Period. Goodness as we know it is dependent upon human judgment. But because we're restricted to our own judgment, goodness as we know it must be dependent upon human judgment. There is no one else who can tell us what "good" is. Like everything else important in life, we have to figure it out for ourselves.
Luckily, there are an awful lot of human beings with very similar judgments about what "good" is. Are there any cultures in which a brilliant sunset is considered ugly? Are there any cultures where a surplus of food/money/clothing is considered a bad thing? Are there any cultures that consider senseless killing (as opposed to whatever legal forms of killing they may have) is morally justifiable? If there are, they're way in the minority.
So we do have a way of judging human goodness. (It's called "universal" good, which drives me bonkers, for obvious reasons.) It's each other. If nine out of ten people in the room agree that murdering Judy would be a bad thing, then the probability is high that murdering Judy is not something we ought to do. (Bill, on the other hand, is an ugly, filthy, and greedy bastard, and no one denies that killing him would be the right thing to do.)
"Goodness" must be a human judgment, and therefore it is a humanistic judgment. Since humanism applies only to humans, it can't suffice for a pantheistic "good."
There's the quick way out, which is to say that universal goodness does not exist. And technically, from a pantheistic sense, that's true. Since goodness is a subjective judgment, there is no such thing as universal goodness.
[There may not be anything truly objective, either, if you really think about it. My entire life is a subjective experience. The universe that I live in is my own subjective experience. But unless the universe itself is aware, there can't be any objective experience. Not to mention that if the universe were aware, then its experience would still be subjective to itself, and I could go on digging bottomless pits here, but I won't.]
So in order to apply "goodness" to pantheism, maybe we have to alter somewhat the definition of good. But it still has to have some bearing on what we call "good," otherwise we would just have to make up a new word for it. (Schmork! The universe is hereby declared to be schmork! And all things participate in the transcendental schmorkiness of the universe!)
And this is where I'm gonna go back to that original reading I referenced at the beginning.
... [T]he holy at its base level is purely good. Each thing, if it is a physical thing, animate thing, animal or human, is good intrinsically in that it exemplifies a kind of nature; each kind of nature (for example, physicality, organicity) is a kind of natural development and thus a kind of goodness, because goodness natural development. A good is a kind of nature (for example, animality) or a development of a kind of nature (for example, an animal’s satisfying its desires).
If I'm reading this correctly, the author is essentially saying that everything which exists is good because, well, it exists. And we can say that existence is good, simply because there can be no good or evil (or purple or big or smelly or funny or crumbly or tame or, well, any descriptive at all) to nonexistence. There's a lot of things that can be said about existence; but the only thing that can be said about nonexistence is that, well, it doesn't exist.
[Actually, nonexistence can't be said to not exist, either. Anything that can be talked about at all exists in some sense, even if it's only as an idea. But that's another bottomless pit...]
Anyone who's been to a funeral knows that guilty twinge of I'm still here. It's part of the whole muddle of emotions, from grief at the loss of a loved one, to joy in remembering them. But we don't like to talk about it, because it's judged to be a selfish and ugly emotion. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't; but it's there, and it's valid.
That secret sigh of relief that we're still here exists because, at our core, we know that to exist is in itself a good thing. And it's the closest thing to a universal judgment, because we can see similar emotions shared by other creatures. Behaviorists will say that whales breach to knock off parasites; but anyone with half a mirror neuron will tell you that those whales are having fun. (Even if the behaviorists are right, who doesn't like getting a good backscratch?)
There is, to my mind, ample evidence that animals with any sort of behavior patterns that we can interpret have at least a rudimentary sense of satisfaction or even enjoyment in their lives. And since there is evidence that even plants have some sense of "me" vs. "not me," perhaps there is a plant version of the good life.
Satisfaction in life may even be a survival technique.
So maybe a pantheistic definition of "good" can be life itself. Which fits the philosophy, since existence is God in pantheism. But there still has to be that slight separation from the human sense of good. The goodness of life is neither aesthetic (because life can be terribly ugly), nor beneficial (because all life will eventually end in death), nor moral (because so many terrible things can be accomplished in one lifetime). Goodness from this pantheistic sense must build upon that basic gratitude, satisfaction, and even joy that existence sparks. Which, from that base, can include the three human types of goodness, because without being able to experiencing the basic goodness of existence, we might not be able to understand any other goodness.
Overall, this pantheistic concept of "life is good" is closest to an aesthetic judgment of goodness than it is to any other. It also bears on moral goodness, because if we can experience the goodness of our own lives, we know that others' lives must also be good.
I'm not sure that's the only form of goodness that can build specifically upon pantheism. The three forms of human goodness can certainly be built on it. Moral goodness sure as hell needs a shot of pantheism, since so many moralizers think that their way is the only way, instead of trying to understand that they are no different from anyone else. (Not to mention an infusion of humanism: If we must rely on each other for our moral judgments, can we pleasepleaseplease throw out the idea that Big Daddy in the Sky will get pissed off if we don't kiss his ass?)
The goodness of existence seems like such a pat answer to "what is good in patheism?", but the more I think about it, the more I like it. It's certainly the most intense form of goodness I've ever experienced, when I've had occasion to be confronted with it (such as at a funeral, or when I'm eighty feet down on Palancar reef in Cozumel, or the first time I caught my baby daughter studying my face). It's a purely physical reaction, from oxytocin flooding the bloodstream, to adrenaline dilating the time sense, but that suits pantheism as well, since everything physical is understood to be divine.
And there's another component to this type of goodness: There is no antithesis. Evil does not, and cannot, exist as a pantheistic concept.
Yes, evil does exist. Evil exists when people do terrible things to each other, or to anything else capable of suffering. But evil is only possible among creatures who are capable of empathy. An act is only evil if it's performed by a creature who knows it's wrong. (Shades of Genesis, which is not entirely accidental. Genesis is the best monument to existentialism that ever was.) A tornado cannot be evil. Neither can a supernova. Or a virus. But a chimpanzee can be cruel. Dolphins play catch with other dolphins' babies. Herd animals are masters of the fine art of snubbing. All of these things are evil, not simply because they're harmful, but because the creatures who perform them know (or seem to know) that they're harming one another, and are choosing harm. That's what evil is: it's not losing your home to a hurricane, it's being unable to recover from the loss, because nobody else cares.
Natural evil does not exist, any more than natural good. The God of pantheism is a very different concept from the traditional God, which has three main characteristics:
- Omniscience
- Omnipotence
- Omnibenevolence
In other words, God is all knowing, all powerful, and all good. Which brings up the problem of evil: Why, then, do bad things happen?
It's the Achilles heel of traditional theism, and there's at least as many logical loopholes trying to get around it as there are "proofs" of God's existence. (Which, incidentally, pantheism gets around quite handily too, for obvious reasons.)
Hurricane Katrina was not sent by God because America is a haven for gays, pagans, and atheists. The domino effect of disasters after the hurricane were not due to divine retribution.
Neither is global warming/climate change due to Mother Nature exacting her revenge on her greedy and wasteful children. That sort of New Age/mystical environmentalist crap is not really any different than the crap Falwell spouts. Both systems depend upon the idea that the universe is run by a (supposedly) benevolent supreme being, who punishes us puny humans for our puny human misdeeds.
But in the pantheistic view, there is no such thing as cosmic evil, because the universe is amoral. (Funny how "good" can refer to so many things, but "evil" is only ever moral.) The "goodness" of pantheism has no evil antithesis. Even if you try saying that if life is good then death must be evil, it'll still fall short, because life would not exist without death. Death is part of life, so death itself is part of the goodness of life.
Human evil is possible, but not cosmic evil. There is no devil. There is no boogeyman out to get us. There is no eternal punishment. There is only us, and this life, and the existence we share with everything else, and the universal existence that we're all a part of.
Which, all in all, is pretty damn good.
So, for my first trick (which will undoubtedly fall flat), I'll try to define "good."
If "good" were an easy concept, it wouldn't have been a continual preoccupation of philosophers ever since ancient Greece. What is good? Is it virtue (and then what's virtue)? Is it a moral thing, an aesthetic thing? Who decides what's good? What if something's good for me but not for you; is it still good?
To me, goodness falls into three categories (there are probably more, but I can't think of 'em): Aesthetic, beneficial (or possibly economic), and moral.
Aesthetic goodness is anything that makes us "feel good." That can include sex, rainbows, sunsets, walks on the beach, watching a thunderstorm, listening to Mozart, reading a pageturner, and so on. It doesn't have to have a moral component to it, though moral goodness often has an aesthetic component to it. (When someone performs a charitable act, it can be said that "they did a beautiful thing.")
Beneficial goodness isn't entirely moral, although, again, moral goodness usually benefits someone. I'm talking mostly about natural good, like rain or sun or an abundance of resources. Rain, for instance, is said to be a good thing, though too much of it can be very bad. Same with sun or wind or any other resource. A balanced economy is as good as a balanced ecosystem. Goodness in this sense describes anything that benefits someone.
Moral good includes aesthetic and beneficial good, and sometimes (confusingly) overshadows them. Mostly, it's about living in such a manner that your actions either do not harm, or in fact actively help, those whose lives you affect. Putting naked women on display might be aesthetically pleasing to some people, but if the women aren't willing to be display pieces, it's morally wrong because it harms the women. Even though robbing a bank might be good for your pocketbook, it's morally wrong, because it negatively affects everyone that you've stolen from.
Where moral good gets confusing is when agent perception, our animistic tendencies, step in. A storm comes along and destroys our crops, and therefore God is punishing us for our sins. Execution by beheading, hanging, and the electric chair have been declared barbaric, not necessarily because they are less efficient or less painful than the gas chamber or lethal injection, but because they are a much uglier and more shocking affair.
But there's something here that really ties all of these ideas of "goodness" together. All of these ideas relate specifically to us. What is beautiful (and therefore good) to us; what is beneficial (and therefore good) to us; what is moral (and therefore good) to us. Us being humanity, as opposed to skunks or spiders or elm trees or aliens.
We are actually developing a concept of "good" that includes animals and nature. But that still relates to humans, and what we judge to be good. Environmentalism is not actually concerned with letting nature take its course; environmentalism is concerned with preserving what it sees as a natural status quo. Unfortunately, nature does not have a status quo. A balanced ecosystem may be good, but ecosystems don't balance themselves by growing pretty flowers and playing pretty music; they balance themselves through catastrophe. Climate change is the global system balancing itself catastrophically.
If we really wanted a balanced global ecosystem, we wouldn't be trying to moderate climate change, we'd want it to take its course as quickly as possible. But we want as much of that status quo in our generation, and our children's generations, as we can get, because we're essentially self-centered. (Not necessarily egotistical; self-centered as human-centered, self-centered as "This is what I find good, so I want to preserve it.")
When we talk about environmental good, we're talking about the plants and animals who live in whatever ecosystem. We're considering them as though they were alive (which they are), and had feelings (which at least animals do), and were capable of suffering (which animals certainly are; and though it's a far cry from neurology, there's beginning to be some evidence that plants are capable of gathering information). That's a HUGE step for us as human beings, considering that a few hundred years ago hardly anyone batted an eye at live animal vivisection. But we're still capable of making monumental blunders, mostly because we're making human judgments.
When we think about what's good for the skunks, spiders, and elm trees, we're essentially putting ourselves in their place. That's how we make moral judgments, through sympathy. It takes a lot of brain power to stop thinking like a human and try to get into the mind of even a dog. (As evidenced by the fact that far too many dogs are treated like children instead of like canines.) What would environmentalism be like, if it were run by dogs? Or, say, roaches?
All this is to say that, no matter what your definition of "good" is, it's a human definition. We don't know for certain what a roach would define "good" as, though it's a good bet it wouldn't match up with our definition very much, if at all. A dog's definition might be more similar, though there would still probably be some major disagreement. (Let's have lots more trees and fire hydrants! Yeah!)
How, then, can we possibly talk about any sort of truly universal good?
The answer is, we can't. Period. Goodness as we know it is dependent upon human judgment. But because we're restricted to our own judgment, goodness as we know it must be dependent upon human judgment. There is no one else who can tell us what "good" is. Like everything else important in life, we have to figure it out for ourselves.
Luckily, there are an awful lot of human beings with very similar judgments about what "good" is. Are there any cultures in which a brilliant sunset is considered ugly? Are there any cultures where a surplus of food/money/clothing is considered a bad thing? Are there any cultures that consider senseless killing (as opposed to whatever legal forms of killing they may have) is morally justifiable? If there are, they're way in the minority.
So we do have a way of judging human goodness. (It's called "universal" good, which drives me bonkers, for obvious reasons.) It's each other. If nine out of ten people in the room agree that murdering Judy would be a bad thing, then the probability is high that murdering Judy is not something we ought to do. (Bill, on the other hand, is an ugly, filthy, and greedy bastard, and no one denies that killing him would be the right thing to do.)
"Goodness" must be a human judgment, and therefore it is a humanistic judgment. Since humanism applies only to humans, it can't suffice for a pantheistic "good."
There's the quick way out, which is to say that universal goodness does not exist. And technically, from a pantheistic sense, that's true. Since goodness is a subjective judgment, there is no such thing as universal goodness.
[There may not be anything truly objective, either, if you really think about it. My entire life is a subjective experience. The universe that I live in is my own subjective experience. But unless the universe itself is aware, there can't be any objective experience. Not to mention that if the universe were aware, then its experience would still be subjective to itself, and I could go on digging bottomless pits here, but I won't.]
So in order to apply "goodness" to pantheism, maybe we have to alter somewhat the definition of good. But it still has to have some bearing on what we call "good," otherwise we would just have to make up a new word for it. (Schmork! The universe is hereby declared to be schmork! And all things participate in the transcendental schmorkiness of the universe!)
And this is where I'm gonna go back to that original reading I referenced at the beginning.
... [T]he holy at its base level is purely good. Each thing, if it is a physical thing, animate thing, animal or human, is good intrinsically in that it exemplifies a kind of nature; each kind of nature (for example, physicality, organicity) is a kind of natural development and thus a kind of goodness, because goodness natural development. A good is a kind of nature (for example, animality) or a development of a kind of nature (for example, an animal’s satisfying its desires).
If I'm reading this correctly, the author is essentially saying that everything which exists is good because, well, it exists. And we can say that existence is good, simply because there can be no good or evil (or purple or big or smelly or funny or crumbly or tame or, well, any descriptive at all) to nonexistence. There's a lot of things that can be said about existence; but the only thing that can be said about nonexistence is that, well, it doesn't exist.
[Actually, nonexistence can't be said to not exist, either. Anything that can be talked about at all exists in some sense, even if it's only as an idea. But that's another bottomless pit...]
Anyone who's been to a funeral knows that guilty twinge of I'm still here. It's part of the whole muddle of emotions, from grief at the loss of a loved one, to joy in remembering them. But we don't like to talk about it, because it's judged to be a selfish and ugly emotion. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't; but it's there, and it's valid.
That secret sigh of relief that we're still here exists because, at our core, we know that to exist is in itself a good thing. And it's the closest thing to a universal judgment, because we can see similar emotions shared by other creatures. Behaviorists will say that whales breach to knock off parasites; but anyone with half a mirror neuron will tell you that those whales are having fun. (Even if the behaviorists are right, who doesn't like getting a good backscratch?)
There is, to my mind, ample evidence that animals with any sort of behavior patterns that we can interpret have at least a rudimentary sense of satisfaction or even enjoyment in their lives. And since there is evidence that even plants have some sense of "me" vs. "not me," perhaps there is a plant version of the good life.
Satisfaction in life may even be a survival technique.
So maybe a pantheistic definition of "good" can be life itself. Which fits the philosophy, since existence is God in pantheism. But there still has to be that slight separation from the human sense of good. The goodness of life is neither aesthetic (because life can be terribly ugly), nor beneficial (because all life will eventually end in death), nor moral (because so many terrible things can be accomplished in one lifetime). Goodness from this pantheistic sense must build upon that basic gratitude, satisfaction, and even joy that existence sparks. Which, from that base, can include the three human types of goodness, because without being able to experiencing the basic goodness of existence, we might not be able to understand any other goodness.
Overall, this pantheistic concept of "life is good" is closest to an aesthetic judgment of goodness than it is to any other. It also bears on moral goodness, because if we can experience the goodness of our own lives, we know that others' lives must also be good.
I'm not sure that's the only form of goodness that can build specifically upon pantheism. The three forms of human goodness can certainly be built on it. Moral goodness sure as hell needs a shot of pantheism, since so many moralizers think that their way is the only way, instead of trying to understand that they are no different from anyone else. (Not to mention an infusion of humanism: If we must rely on each other for our moral judgments, can we pleasepleaseplease throw out the idea that Big Daddy in the Sky will get pissed off if we don't kiss his ass?)
The goodness of existence seems like such a pat answer to "what is good in patheism?", but the more I think about it, the more I like it. It's certainly the most intense form of goodness I've ever experienced, when I've had occasion to be confronted with it (such as at a funeral, or when I'm eighty feet down on Palancar reef in Cozumel, or the first time I caught my baby daughter studying my face). It's a purely physical reaction, from oxytocin flooding the bloodstream, to adrenaline dilating the time sense, but that suits pantheism as well, since everything physical is understood to be divine.
And there's another component to this type of goodness: There is no antithesis. Evil does not, and cannot, exist as a pantheistic concept.
Yes, evil does exist. Evil exists when people do terrible things to each other, or to anything else capable of suffering. But evil is only possible among creatures who are capable of empathy. An act is only evil if it's performed by a creature who knows it's wrong. (Shades of Genesis, which is not entirely accidental. Genesis is the best monument to existentialism that ever was.) A tornado cannot be evil. Neither can a supernova. Or a virus. But a chimpanzee can be cruel. Dolphins play catch with other dolphins' babies. Herd animals are masters of the fine art of snubbing. All of these things are evil, not simply because they're harmful, but because the creatures who perform them know (or seem to know) that they're harming one another, and are choosing harm. That's what evil is: it's not losing your home to a hurricane, it's being unable to recover from the loss, because nobody else cares.
Natural evil does not exist, any more than natural good. The God of pantheism is a very different concept from the traditional God, which has three main characteristics:
- Omniscience
- Omnipotence
- Omnibenevolence
In other words, God is all knowing, all powerful, and all good. Which brings up the problem of evil: Why, then, do bad things happen?
It's the Achilles heel of traditional theism, and there's at least as many logical loopholes trying to get around it as there are "proofs" of God's existence. (Which, incidentally, pantheism gets around quite handily too, for obvious reasons.)
Hurricane Katrina was not sent by God because America is a haven for gays, pagans, and atheists. The domino effect of disasters after the hurricane were not due to divine retribution.
Neither is global warming/climate change due to Mother Nature exacting her revenge on her greedy and wasteful children. That sort of New Age/mystical environmentalist crap is not really any different than the crap Falwell spouts. Both systems depend upon the idea that the universe is run by a (supposedly) benevolent supreme being, who punishes us puny humans for our puny human misdeeds.
But in the pantheistic view, there is no such thing as cosmic evil, because the universe is amoral. (Funny how "good" can refer to so many things, but "evil" is only ever moral.) The "goodness" of pantheism has no evil antithesis. Even if you try saying that if life is good then death must be evil, it'll still fall short, because life would not exist without death. Death is part of life, so death itself is part of the goodness of life.
Human evil is possible, but not cosmic evil. There is no devil. There is no boogeyman out to get us. There is no eternal punishment. There is only us, and this life, and the existence we share with everything else, and the universal existence that we're all a part of.
Which, all in all, is pretty damn good.