I wrote a post which laid out the cornerstone of my theory of objective value. In it I argued that “goodness equals effectiveness”. Wherever one uses the word “good”, one could substitute the word “effectiveness” and the sentence would mean the same thing. My view is that since effectiveness is clearly a measurable and factual matter (at least in theory), so is goodness.
A thing’s overall effective functioning, its overall goodness, is relative to three things: its context, its degree, and the hierarchies of effectiveness of which it is a component part.
Contextual Determinants of What Constitutes Effectiveness/Goodness
Something can only be effective in the context of some function or functions. In other words, we can only say that x is effective
(a) at functioning in some way
(b) at functioning with some other things to combine to create a more complex function
(c) creating some further end outside of its own internal functioning (and outside of the more complex functions of which it is a part)
Put more simply, any time we say something is good, i.e., that something is effective, we have to specify what it is good at, i.e., what it is effectively doing, contributing to, or bringing forth through its activity.
So no functioning is good in an unqualified way. An apple is good, i.e., effectively an apple, when all its component molecules are functioning in the ways that make an apple happen. And the apple is only good as an apple, i.e., as doing apple things. It is not good as a chair for allowing humans to sit upright. It serves various nutritional and pleasure-giving functions for humans so we take an interest in these various functions of the apple since they contribute to our goals in these ways. The apple has other things it functionally does that may have no interest to us. Just because certain of its functions contribute to some of our own goods (by providing nutrition and pleasure) does not mean that all the effective functions of an apple are exhausted by these functions. It has others.
Human actions can be called good relative (a) to their intrinsic functional effectiveness, (b) to their contribution to larger, more powerfully functioning actions, and (c) to their abilities to bring about external goods.
(a) I stomp my foot intrinsically well if my attempts to bend my knee and raise my foot and then to slam it to the floor are all successful. This is an effective stomping of my foot, which is equivalent to saying it is a good stomping of my foot.
(b) When I stomp my foot as part of a dance, in addition to stomping my foot well for its own sake, I aim to have this foot stomping contribute to an overall activity of dancing well. Perhaps I stomp my foot too hard for the requirements of the dance. In this case, even though I stomped my foot well, I therein performed less well at the more complex activity I was carrying out. If being able to dance is to be judged a more valuable task than simple stomping is—either intrinsically, because it is a more complex and powerful kind of functioning, or extrinsically because I have set it as my purpose at the moment—then my relatively good foot stomping is simultaneously relatively bad dancing. And if, on the other hand, I not only foot stomp effectively but do so in a way that constitutes dancing effectively, then I have done both the lesser and the greater functions well.
(c) When I stomp my foot in order to squash a bug, then aside from the effectiveness of controlling my leg to stomp in the desired way, I also aim at something outside of foot stomping—bug killing. If the effect is that the bug is dead, then my good (effective) foot stomping is also a good (effective) bug killing. And, if I fail to kill the bug, I may still have done a good foot-stomping but it would not have been a good bug-killing.
The Badness of Murder
To apply this to an example some want to use against my account, we can say that an effective murderer is a “good” murderer since she accomplishes the goal of making people die. This does not at all mean that since murder is an instance of effectiveness that murder is at all good in any unqualified sense. It does not mean that it is good for humans to be murderers. It is indeed good for people to have the cleverness, the manual dexterity, the boldness, the planning skills, etc. that may go into being a good murderer. These traits may even be admired by those who nonetheless are rightly repulsed by the murderer’s murders.
The reason why murdering is evil is because it is the kind of effective functioning that destroys better, more complex functioning both in the murderer himself and, of course, in the one he murders. The highest, most complex, and most powerful functioning we can have is the kind by which we master ourselves completely so we can maximally well function according to our powers and so that, through this, we can maximally increase the powers of others.
When we so empower others, they become functions of our power in the sense that whenever they function powerfully in the ways we have aided them to function, we are partially responsible for this and so effective and powerful through them. When I teach you an idea and it increases your rational ability to understand the world, henceforth I am always powerful in you when you have and use that understanding. If I teach you a skill, I am powerful in your skillful exercise. If I write a law that that removes a barrier to your performing some flourishing activity then I am powerful when you now can flourish. If I entertain you, I am powerful not only for affecting you and getting the response I want from you (the feeling of being entertained) but I am contributing to your overall mental well being for making you pleased, helping your relax and recharge for future exercises of power, etc. If I install your pipes, I am powerful in the effective plumbing in your house. If I build your house, I am powerful everyday it keeps you comfortable and does not collapse upon you and kill you.
When one murder another he effectively remove an entire powerful functioning from the world. He is responsible for much less functioning, much less effectiveness, much less goodness. This is a net loss of his own power since all that lost goodness is on the ledger for him. He is responsible for all that does not happen comparable to the way that when we personally fail in exercising a power we are responsible for the goods we were trying to create not being there when the world would have been better if they were there (and we would have been more powerful for having created them). Except this case goes well beyond failing to exercise power in some specific case, now there is all this powerful functioning of another person that will cease entirely. All this good the murderer cannot replace. The murder also harms the psyches of those who love the victim, threatening to be counter-productive to their own flourishing. Murders also threaten the effective functioning of the social order. Violent, hostile, mistrustful social arrangements are counter-productive to maximum flourishing of the maximum number of individuals and counter-productive to total prosperity.
And the murderer himself also fails in various intrinsic human functional capacities for optimal empathy, for optimal social cooperation and coordination, for empowering others, for creating (or contributing to) good, effective things and institutions, etc.
Hierarchies of Goods
Goods are in a hierarchy. A greater power of effectiveness is better than a lesser power of effectiveness for being more effectiveness (and effectiveness itself equals goodness itself—it is a transcendental category). More complex functions are greater powers since they involve a greater quantity of individual instances of effectiveness in their sub-components and also the extra and more complicated instances of effectiveness that occur through the complex coordination and multiplication of each sub-effectiveness.
So a particular good effectiveness can be destructive to total power by either having its effectiveness only at the expense of a greater overall functioning of something of which it is a sub-component or by exercising strong power of effectiveness that destroys or hinders one’s other powers and with them one’s total power and the total effect in the world.
The Spectra of Good to Bad
No things are either all good without qualification or all bad without qualification. Badness is the opposite of the spectrum from goodness and every function (i.e., every being) is somewhere on this spectrum for its kind of being, for its kind of functioning. Every thing in existence is at least minimally good qua its kind of being. For effectively being the kind of thing it is, it has some modicum of goodness as that successful instance of that kind of functionality. To the extent that any given thing functions poorly as the kind of thing it is, it is also bad. Things which cross a certain threshold where their goodness outweighs their badness we call “good” in a shorthand way and things which cross the threshold into predominantly poor functioning we call “bad” in a shorthand way.
There are of course many more distinctions to make. For now it was necessary to clarify that saying goodness equals effectiveness is compatible with saying that
(1) goods (instances of effectiveness) are only good in strictly specifiable contexts of effectiveness and never just simply
(2) goods (instances of effectiveness) are not all equal, but are capable of being ranked objectively in terms of their degree of functional effectiveness (i.e., power)
(3) all things are only good (i.e. only effective) to a certain degree and are also at least a little bad to a certain degree (and vice versa), even if that degree of effective goodness or ineffective badness is miniscule.
(4) things which are very good, very effective (even excellently effective) in their own functioning, or for some particular higher functioning, can still also be devastatingly bad (even outright evil) because they harm (or outright destroy) much greater qualities, sums, or complexities of power, on a total accounting.
Listed below are some of the most salient posts I have written on these and related problems in value theory, metaethics, moral psychology, practical ethics, and normative moral theory. There are a lot of them but you do not need to read them all to understand any of them whose titles interest you in particular: