Laws of social perfectibility

To explore the laws of social perfectibility is to distinguish good society from bad society. However, a basic problem in evaluating something as good or bad is that the term “good” does not have a fixed meaning. In literature the term “good” is used in different senses. It is not always true that what is good in one sense is also good in another sense. Shaida (2003) identifies five pairs of senses in which good may be defined:

(a) intrinsic and extrinsic,

(b) subjective and objective,

(c) relative and absolute,

(d) specific or particular and general or universal, and

(e) moral and non-moral. Thus certain things are considered to be good in themselves and certain other things are considered to be good because they are good for something else. The distinction between good on the basis of individuals’ feelings and emotions and good on the basis of effects on others is well understood. Further, something may be defined as conditioned good, i.e., good for certain individual or groups of people in some specific circumstances, or it may be unconditioned good, i.e., good for all individuals and groups of people in all circumstances .

Specific good is good for some people while general good is good for all. Finally, a good may be good in a non-moral sense, i.e. in terms of efficacy, efficiency, skill, aesthetic appeal, gains and profits or any other consideration; a good may be considered morally good if it is based on acceptance of a moral principle, which along with some other principle(s) constitutes a moral point of view. Can you answer in what sense is peace good? In what sense is equality good? Can war be good? Can inequality also be good? Several sociologists have argued that social stratification is functional for society although it is dysfunctional for the lower classes.