Who Defines Good Or Bad?

[Rad3n]

Imagine a horrible song that everyone loves. Is it still a bad song if 99% of the world think it's great? Is it a good song if 49% of the world think it's great? If it's an awesome song and only 5 people like it in the entire world, is it a bad song?

I know that a lot of these threads come down to people's personal definitions. Who decides what's good or bad? Is it the general consensus or is it something else. I'm selfish in this way. I don't care if the whole world loves it, if I see it as a bad song ( for whatever reason ), it therefore is a bad song. ( Not to say I don't usually confer with others at some point ).

Here's something to stimulate your thinking; A long time ago everyone thought the world was flat. Only those who'd seen the world and knew it to be round believed it to be round.

If only a select few have seen what great music is, are they right to say what's good and what's bad? (this isn't to say I think my taste in music is ultimate)

Who defines what's good or bad music? Good or bad anything for that matter?

[Squeek]

There's a problem with your argument in that you're saying "a horrible song that everyone loves".

Who decided it was horrible?

You know who? You. You decide what pleases your senses and what displeases your senses. It's really easy.

And your example with flat/round Earth: that wasn't an opinion. That was fact. There's no fact involved in what people think of songs or movies or anything like that. A good way to think about this: if it's measurable or provable, it's a fact. If it's not, it's an opinion.

You can take a shuttle outside of Earth yourself and confirm that it's not flat. You can take measurements of the sun's movement over time using the shadows cast down a well to confirm it too.

[Sullyman2007]

I always believed the concept of good and bad to be, you say it better that me, the -general concensus- of the given example; example being, whatever it may be that you are trying to define as good or bad. If 99% of the worlds population thinks one specific type of music is bad, then it would make sense to think that the given type of music in question is indeed -bad-.

[Squeek]

The general consensus does not have the authority to tag on form of music good or bad. It's your own opinion.

Everyone I've asked says country music sucks. Therefore, country music sucks. That's what you're saying, right?

Just because I don't live in the South and only ask people whose musical tastes I already know has nothing to do with it, after all. It's the general consensus!

[Mr.Nothing]

Defining something as generally 'good' or 'bad' is impossible. Nothing can be absolutely terrible to every single person in the entire world. It is your opinion, and nothing/no one can decide what is good or bad to you, but you.

[Sullyman2007]

If I were to ask every single person I know wether or not they like country music, and ask for a yes or no answer, and every single person said no, then yes, it would make me think that country music was probably really bad since no one likes it. Of course that doesn't stop me from going and making my own opinion though.

I was merely stating that if 99% of the worlds population doesn't like a particular type of music, then it is reasonable to say that you probably won't like it either.

[Skelerex]

Originally Posted by Rad3n

Imagine a horrible song that everyone loves.

I cannot imagine such a thing because I cannot think of anything in this world that everyone loves, good or bad. Plus, if everyone loved it, then how could it possibly be horrible? Music isn't something inherently good or bad. Even if everyone in the world liked polluting, polluting would still be bad. But if there was a single song that everybody liked, then I can't see any reason it would be considered a horrible song.

Originally Posted by Rad3n

Is it still a bad song if 99% of the world think it's great?

It was never ultimately a bad song to begin with. It was just a song, and people formed opinions about it. If 99% of the people in the world think a song is bad, then it's great to the other 1%.

Originally Posted by Rad3n

Who decides what's good or bad?

The individual. But no individual can decide for another.

[devonin]

Imagine a horrible song that everyone loves.

I'd suggest in fact that your statement here is inherantly contradictory. Since the music industry tends to gauge the success or failure of a musical act by how popular it is, if everyone loves it, it can't be horrible, and if nobody likes it, it can't be great.

The basic logical criticism to give you is "You need to define your terms" because as has been mentioned more than once in this thread, you're whinging your way merrily down subjectivity slope.

What I suspect you're trying to get at is a question more along the lines of "If a song demonstrates technical facility with music, as in, a skilled musician performed it and did so skillfully, but people don't enjoy listening to it, was it bad?" and conversely, "If a song demonstrates that the creator has very little facility as a musician, but people enjoy listening to it, is it bad?"

The answer to both of those questions is "Depends what you mean by good/bad"

If you define 'good music' as "Music which demonstrates objective skill and knowledge of the fundamentals of performance" then a skillful song that isn't popular is still good music, and a poorly performed but popular song is still bad music, but if you define 'good music' as "Music which entertains a large number of people, who derive enjoyment from listening to it" then the reverse is true.

This doesn't even necessarily come down to an issue of "subjectivity vs objectivity" so much as a "X is true for certain values of X" If you'd set out a clear set of criteria for what you consider to be good or bad (Though bear in mind that -you- are setting out the criteria subjectively) you can still decide objectively the degree to which something applies to those criteria.

[NFD]

If you think about it from the view of the government, the president, and everybody under that basically. If you think about it from a point of view about something so unimportant as music, it's always going to be you, or an adult figure in your life that decides things for you because they feel that you aren't competent enough to make your own decisions.

[MystictheHedgehog]

It's all about opinion here. Take the song "I kissed a Girl" the has recently become very popular. Personally, I think it's a terrible song, and I don't enjoy it. That would be my opinion. Just because many people like it doesn't determine if it is a good song or not. It comes down to what YOU think. You can set the criteria for what you consider bad or good, like dev said, but then again that comes down to your opinion of what makes a good or bad song.

[Cursebred]

People might actually love a horrible song because, well, they don't see it is horrible. Using the word "horrible" is from your own thoughts. There is not really much that could come to a 99 to 1 scenario, just to throw that out there...

[awein999]

it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Let's say in another universe high pitched wailing is what most people enjoy hearing, but a select few don't like it. Does this mean high pitched wailing is good music?

[Verruckter]

Some people will say that the sense of beauty is innate. Show a monstrous face to a baby, it'll cry. Others say, you can learn it. If the first things a baby sees is the faces of the same monstrous beings, maybe it'll get used to that and be scared of actual humans (not sure if this experiment has been tried).

All in all, what defines good or bad is yourself. But there are certain limitations to this.

For example, some people consider that good music is original, unique and doesn't follow a predetermined pattern. Their ear will still enijoy the catchy pop music, but in their consciousness they will be able to say in all honesty that they don't actually like the music, because they prefer something more complex or simply different. In this way, everyone can enjoy the music, but not everyone will appreciate it the same way.

Good or bad is just a "rank" you give to anything you use your judgement to appreciate. It's relative. The reason why you're wondering "who set the standards" is because a catchy song will please all ears, but as I've said before, not everyone will appreciate. In the same way, not everyone will actually try to define themselves their tastes and will just like what's catchy and easily listenable.

[UserNameGoesHere]

Pairing good/bad is the same thing as advantageous/disadvantageous.

Is something ultimately advantageous? Then it is good.
Is it ultimately disadvantageous? Then it is bad.

The ability of each person or group to determine degree of value, with better value given to the more advantageous things, is the ability to distinguish between what is good and what is bad. The better one is at such approximations, the better one is at such determinations.

As to who defines good/bad depends on if there are absolute values for them. If there are, and I believe this to be the case, then there will be absolute correct answers for the good/badness of anything though it may be incalculable for humans. If there aren't, there is no absolute objective measure for it, which makes the question itself less important.

There is also a subtle difference between good vs. bad and good vs. evil.

[tsugomaru]

Music is a pattern. When people listen to new songs, they tend to really hate it because they don't understand the pattern. Our mind will do one of two things, either reject it or try to solve the pattern. If we reject it, we say that we hate the song. If we chose to solve the pattern and we do, we end up liking it for a while and then getting bored of it after some time. If we don't get the pattern after listening to the song a repeated number of times, we just don't like it.

You decide whether or not you like the song. Ultimately, that is your decision. You can trick yourself into believing that other people have influences on your taste in music, which is true. You could be listening to a song you really like and then share it with your friend, who hates it. If you start hating it because he hated it, although he influenced your decision, you still made that decision to hate the song.

No matter how many ways you look at it, society will always have some kind of influence on you, whether or not you like it. The society will have an opinion, but it's up to you to chose whether or not you want to share it.

~Tsugomaru

[Zythus]

Subjectivism and Empiricism is your friend.

[Flaming_Dingleberry]

Originally Posted by Rad3n

Here's something to stimulate your thinking; A long time ago everyone thought the world was flat. Only those who'd seen the world and knew it to be round believed it to be round.

If only a select few have seen what great music is, are they right to say what's good and what's bad? (this isn't to say I think my taste in music is ultimate)

The world is a lot bigger and a lot more difficult to understand than music. Every song has someone who doesn't like it, I think a songs quality depends on the ratio between how many like it and dislike it. Since we are the ones who create opinions, we should be the ones who decide what the general opinion should be, and since that's impossible to keep track of, it's not important.

[GamerShadow]

"Good and Bad" Is completely based upon one thing, perspective. What one individual thinks is rotten, awful, and terrible could be worshipped by another. (This should remind you of the saying which goes "One man's trash is another man's treasure.)

This can also be applied to good vs evil. There is no good, and there is no evil. They are merely two perspectives which oppose one another.

Take for example a young child and their parents. If the parents create tons of rules which restricts the child's behavior, they might go off and say that their parents are "evil." However, the parents believe that what they are doing for their child is "good", as it promotes more rigid behavior and thus, you have two conflicting views.

The same thing applies to the innumerable fantasy tales where the great "villian" is attempting to conquer the world for their own gain, and the others are trying to stop them. The "villian" sees what they are doing as "good" (at least, for themselves), while everybody else dislikes the "villian's" actions, thus they claim that they are "evil."

Edit: To actually answer the thread question, it is the individual which decides for themselves only what is "good or bad". Other individuals decide for themselves as well.

[Frozen Beat]

But some parents will beat their child and call it "discipline" from simple things such as grades while their child is in first grade, or maybe they didn't do their homework fast enough.

Trust me it happens.

[Zythus]

Originally Posted by Frozen Beat

Trust me it happens.

From the parents' perspective, it is intrinsically beneficial regardless of age or whatever attribute you happen to empathize with.

Seeing the redundancy of this thread, I wish to add a more realistic boundary to the subjectiveness we debate in circles.

a horrible song that everyone loves.

There are two parts to this statement. "A horrible song" is the conception you, the individual, ascribe to the song because of the elements that do not fit your particular taste. Despite your preference as the lone individual, the majority of the audience constitutes a rating of a positive preference for the exact same song;"that everyone loves" . You can argue the song is tasteless due to your empirical preference, but it is also substantially valid that the song is a good song to have enticed the larger majority of the audience. This can be said to be an objective evaluation of good and bad, based on consensus and statistics. Your subjective perspective may apply and prevail to yourself, but majority's perspective is equally moving.

Originally Posted by UserNameGoesHere

Is something ultimately advantageous? Then it is good.
Is it ultimately disadvantageous? Then it is bad.

As to who defines good/bad depends on if there are absolute values for them. If there are, and I believe this to be the case, then there will be absolute correct answers for the good/badness of anything though it may be incalculable for humans. If there aren't, there is no absolute objective measure for it, which makes the question itself less important.

Consequentialism is one way to subjectively distinct between "good" and "bad".
However, I don't see why it would be less important just because there is no "objective measure". If that was the case, I can say that morality does not matter because priorities may be different.