What is it to be a good person?

I think that we can safely say that a 'good' person is someone who practices altruism; that is, someone who lives not only to benefit themselves, but also to benefit others. Of course, you then run into problems defining who another person is, and at what precise ratio of self-interest to selflessness you can call yourself 'good'. Everybody thinks of themselves as being a good person, the hero of their story, unless they're experiencing guilt (itself a product of society disagreeing with their interpretation thereof). Hitler himself no doubt thought of himself as a valiant knight, and most terrorists think of themselves as righteous warriors of purity and goodness. Thus, the above definition of good has an addendum; first altruism, then a lack of murder. Of course, that also excludes most people who serve in the military from being fundamentally good people, but I'm no big fan of the military (I see it as a necessary evil).

 

The problem I see with this line of thinking is that if so...probably there are no good people.

It appears to me (I may be wrong) that everyone lives their life only with what pleases them in mind.

People like Mother Theresa and Albert Schweitzer...did what they did to satisfy a need in themselves.

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Idi Amin...did that same thing.

We do what makes us happy...or content.

Even miserable people seem to derive contentment from their misery.

It is a half-baked cake I'm offering, I grant you...but I think there's more food there than one might suppose at first glance.

 

I think you're taking too narrow a view of what altruism is. If you're doing something to benefit others, even if the root desire of that is from the internal satisfaction you acquire by benefiting others, that still counts as altruism in my book.

 

That may be true but if you're helping strangers you're depriving your inner circle of resources that could benefit them. Charity begins at home.

 

Helping others when you see they are in need.

 

Sure. I don't particularly contest that. However, after your inner circle is pretty much fine, your number one goal ought to be maximizing human life and minimizing death. It's called 'effective altruism'. Giving 10,000 dollars to a waitress might feel good, but giving fifty African families goats would save and benefit far more lives overall, for instance.

 

The simplest summation of the divider between good and bad would probably be intent.

Take the simple act of giving someone else money.

Is it charity, or an obligation, or a base exchange for some other thing which has its own intent behind it? Intent informs the judgement of good or bad.

 

Good or bad only exists among the views of others.

If it were only you the concept is not valid and not until authenticated by another person does it become true.

 

Yep.

It's subjective.

AA

 

If ya give possum a free balogna sammich...

... he'll think yer prob'ly a pretty good person.

 

That's fine until the authenticator has motives of their own.

Sent from my LG-H901 using Tapatalk

 

Every decision every person makes is derived from a motive.

Here is my point. If you and I were the only two people and you said you wanted to kill me I would say no that is wrong. Once I say that you reply with why.

There are no galactic rules saying it would be wrong for you to kill me. Unless there is a third person there who validates my view, my view is irrelevant.

 

I disagree as I have the ability to assess my own goodness or badness by my own moral code.

I am many different things both good and bad to many different people. If I were to create a thread and ask others to assess my goodness or badness there would likely be a wide range of views, that being the case which assessment would be the correct assessment and why? Just because some will see another as good does not mean that the other is good, just as those who see another as bad does not mean that the other is bad.

Allowing others to decide for oneself if they are good or not makes one a slave to the perception of others... and I no longer care to be a slave of the perceptions of others. The older I get the less of a (*)(*)(*)(*) I give about what others think about me, though this is not to say that I do not care what others think in general. It has been said that what others think about us is none of our business... a philosophy that I now embrace as how others judge me says more about them than I.

 

Who is this third person and why is their assessment any better than your own? Cannot the assessment of the third person be wrong? If not, why not? What if the third person has a bias against you which influences their judgment of you? What is the third person said that it would not be wrong to kill you? Seems to me you are placing way too much power in the hands of some unknown third person.

 

I appreciate the thought but unfortunately I know far too much to believe in such wonderful tales.

AA

 

Most people in most cultures call a person "good" if he is kind and helpful to his family and community. Extra credit for sending money to children's charities and earthquake victims abroad. If a stranger has one apple and two kids I'd call him good if he gave it to them instead of to the community larder, but yeah that's subjective. I could strain and make an argument that such would be objectively good but there'd be arguments on the other side.

 

Where my definition runs into big problems is when community A and community B both need a given resource for survival and there enough for one but not both. Then you form teams with whomever most shares your values and then go to war. Kill them before they kill you and call it "good." I ain't crazy about the ethics but my clan needs to survive, and I'm sure you feel the same about yours. Right?

- - - Updated - - -