Philosophers are often chided by non-philosophers for their penchant to ask seemingly simplistic questions and then try to answer them abstractly and at length. I admit that this is certainly true in many cases, even perhaps this one. There may be an element of language getting in the way here, since words can have vague or multiple meanings depending on usage or circumstance, and simple words have a comfortable sort of "We all know what this means" kind of feeling to them. What is Good, or what is the good in any situation sounds simplistic at first hearing, but dissection and discussion will tease out nuances that are not just interesting but will prove to be importantly foundational to a person's entire philosophical perspective once they are understood.
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle famously disagreed about the value of knowing what is the Good in any particular situation. Socrates/Plato believed that if a man would know the good way to behave or act in relation to some situation the man (or person) would do the good thing, just because it was the right thing to do. Knowledge of the Good would lead to actions in accord with the Good, for the obvious reason that we all seek to live in harmony with one another, and harmony is Good. Seeking understanding of the Good, and Duty, and Harmony were what Socrates was all about as he "corrupted" the youth of Athens with his constant questioning and dialectic discussions.
Aristotle was not so positive in his outlook. He believed that just knowing the good was not enough. Rather, the individual would also need to see how doing the good or right thing was going to benefit him or her in some way. He added the need for personal reward for good behavior or action, if not for the individual directly, but also perhaps for society in general, or in the long run, or by some other tangible means. Abstractly knowing the Good was fine and all that, but putting that knowledge into action required something more, like motivation to do and support the Good for more than altruistic reasons. Call it putting the Good into context, or maybe making it personal, Aristotle seemed to start from a position of knowledge more than Socrates might have, which makes sense considering Socrates trained Plato, who trained Aristotle.
I would also note that Plato liked to talk about the Forms of things, which were somehow foundational essences that contained a pattern of a thing. It might be clearer to consider a chair as an example. Chairs come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes, but they all have a similar essence we can all see and understand. Can a rock be a chair? Yes, certainly. Can a table be a chair? Not really. A table is different than a chair, even if someone sits on one. A table's essence is different than a chair's essence. Their Forms are different. The Good also has an underlying Form, Plato would argue, with many ways to be expressed in physical manifestations, in acts or deeds, in interpersonal relations, and so on. The Good becomes the basis of ethics, for example. The question of, "What is ethical?" is answered when we can determine the underlying Good condition or outcome in any ethical situation.
For our meeting this week I suggest we take a few minutes to talk about Forms and abstract essences in general, then hone in on the Form of the Good, sharing examples where finding and understanding the Good took time and effort. Do we normally think in terms of what is good in any particular situation, or when making a decision? Is Goodness so ingrained within us that we "just know" what it is? Do we recognize it when we see it? Or do we only recognize that Goodness is lacking when we see something we have a reaction to?