Good for whom?
When we think of good, we have to consider the question of Good for Whom? \xa0Society today, especially the left thinks in terms of the collective good. \xa0Where the theist bases what's \u201cgood\u201d as what's pleasing to God, the secular philosophers have tended to replace God with society. \xa0Asking what is good for society. \xa0This moral framework, based upon altruism (refer to Ayn Rand for additional insights on this) is the negation of one's own self-interests in favor of society. \xa0Though the altruistic approach seems good on the surface, even to theists, especially Christians, upon further reflection on how this value actually plays out in the real world, one can see the cracks in the secular altruist's argument. \xa0Mainly, how do we define what is good for all of society? We as individuals, cannot determine what is best for society, for we can never have a complete enough picture of what society most needs, at least not to a moral certainty. Moreover, is the simple fact that no individual can act on behalf of society. Is there any evidence that history provides us that leads us to conclude that society is a worthy proxy for God when determining matters of morality? \xa0Which society was worthy of such a distinction? \xa0The Ancient Romans? \xa0The Mayans? \xa020thCentury Europe?\nAltruism seems good, even Biblical, but cannot serve as a code of ethics. The problem with altruism isn't that self-sacrifice is bad, it's that it allows society, not the individual, to make the call on who is required to sacrifice their own best interests and why. Society is the majority, and altruism makes one's actions subject to the need of the collective.\n\n--- \n\nSupport this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/jp-mac/support