Greater Good

What is the Greater Good?

How is it determined?
How does it compare?

If this term is considered to be adaptable to varying scenarios, then in general, it seems it intends the meaning of; most universally beneficial. By this definition, it should generally be applicable to most circumstances. The variables of which are taken into consideration for the degree of beneficiality, would depend on the extents of variables which are affected. So basically, as long as a factor is influenced (by whatever is in question for causing the “greater good”), then it should be taken into account, when determining the greater good.

Determining the “greater good”, will often be a vague inaccurate estimate, but a rough estimate will still give you higher probability of benefit, than lack of estimate, and therein random fluke. The basic of determination would be estimating which effects of the options at hand, will be the most beneficial for all that are affected. Figuring out what is the most beneficial for the total sum of factors that are affected, can be estimated by comparing a theoretical value, based on the resulting effects. If there is a small value for many factors which are influenced, compared to big value for 1 factor, the quantities of value on each side can be weighed for which is greater. Even if a theoretical value seems minimal (say 2), if it is for a lot of factors (say 1000 people), it can still greatly outweigh a high value (say 100), for few influenced factors (say 5 people). The theoretical value comparison turns out to be 2000 to 500.

Decisions made in favour of the greater good would prove to be significantly better for the entire group. For eg, those 1000 people were in a small town, and they each had that option, of either 2$ for everyone, or $100 for themselves and 4 others. If each person took the $100 (since it seems better for themselves!), the towns total gain would be $500 000. But if each person went for the greater good of $2 for all, the towns total gain would be $2 000 000. The unintuitive option of the greater good, would be 400% better.

This can often mean a reduced benefit individually, since your portions will be reduced, in order to spread more portions. But it is most beneficial overall, and if others were to make similar choices, you would benefit more overall as well. If each individual doesn’t make their own contribution to the greater good (despite initial personal reduction of benefit), then they can’t complain, without being a hypocrite, about others choosing selfishness over overall benefit, or complain about accumulated universal problems, which are a result of mass negative contribution. If the concept of contribution is understood in combination with the greater good, then each person could do their part, and there will still be an universal gain, regardless of number of contributions.