What makes a good person?

[Virgil]

As they say in New York, that and $1.50 gets you on the subway. Again, why should anyone be good?

There is a great line from the movie Good Fellows. I can't remember the actual words but the mafia guy says something to the effect that "being good is for suckers." I don't think they used the word "good" but something to that effect. Is he right? Is being good for suckers?

Here I found the exact quote. The movie is actually called Goodfellas (1990). The Henry Hill character narrates the following, describing their mob life:

For us to live any other way was nuts. Uh, to us, those goody-good people who worked ****ty jobs for bum paychecks and took the subway to work every day, and worried about their bills, were dead. I mean they were suckers. They had no balls. If we wanted something we just took it. If anyone complained twice they got hit so bad, believe me, they never complained again.

That quote has always stuck with me.

[Chava]

I don't think we're at the same place here. To illustrate my point. It hadn't occured to me before this thread that people could fall into such categories as good or bad. it's like either you're a rotten egg or your not...
It might have something to do with my upbringing, my mother never told me i was bad, or good. She would tell me that I had been very kind, or smart, or inconciderate or rude, but it was never equated as good or bad.
So why shold anyone "be good". I don't know, it's never been a criteria.

[Granny5]

Well, "good" has always meant kind, thoughtful, considerate, etc to me. There are many, many "good" people who make bad decisions, we all do that, but good people, in my opinion, don't do it to be hurtful or inconsiderate of others. We just all make mistakes, but that doesn't mean we are "bad". What I would consider bad is someone who continues making bad decisions/choices without consideration of the results to themself, others, or the world.

[motherhubbard]

I have known this guy for something like 20 years. He’s been in every kind of trouble and looks like it. It would really be easy to call him a bad person and lock your car doors if he were walking nearby. The thing is, he is a wonderful father. This is not something I would say lightly- I don’t call normal parents fantastic. All of his decisions are based on what is best for his son who was recently on the front page of our local newspaper for building a robot for NASA. I have to say that I have gained respect for this fellow and would have to call him a good person. His selflessness elevates him to the ranks of good person as far as I’m concerned. There was a time I was afraid of him and worried about my husband who was a policeman. Now I wouldn’t mind if he showed up at the house. He changed his life so that his son could what he needed- physically and emotionally. WAY TO GO RICK!

[applepie]

An interesting bit has come up through this discussion. Is it possible, or correct, to classify someone as being good or bad? How do you determine what good is? Is there a general definition of what can be called "good" around the world, or is it determined by the society that you are within? (Eventually I'll post my own thoughts on the matter, but I'm enjoying what everyone else thinks at the moment)

[NikolaiI]

Nikolai, I don't think that our abilities have much to do with how 'good' we are, or perhaps I am missing your point completely. In your example, you said that it is more about the skills that an individual has (or lack thereof) rather than their willpower that determines their capability to stay in a particular job. But I think that, essentially, a good person has the willpower to refrain from commiting criminal offences and the like, no matter what annoying impediment gets in the way of their dreams. Even if I find math tests extremely difficult and tedious, I do not need to peer over an intelligent person's shoulder (although this can sometimes seem very tempting).
Our characters are shaped, not by our skills, but by our decisions and social surroundings and our choices ultimately depend on this.

But I agree with you on the point that complete morality does not exist; unless being a 'good' person means that we are just more than 50% good. Even if we act on what we believe is right, our beliefs may be flawed. I'd like to think that I am a pretty 'good' person, though sometimes I want to plot armageddon against some people. Do iniquitous thoughts have a role in determine our integrity, or is it only our actions?

I said and meant "how we do on a math test," not whether or not we cheat, although I'll get to that in a minute. When we take a math test, we have a purpose, which is to complete the math test. No matter how badly we want it, how willful or how good our character is, it is still the skills that determine how well we do. (Knowledge, concentration, deductive reasoning, etc.)

a good person has the willpower to refrain from commiting criminal offences and the like, no matter what annoying impediment gets in the way of their dreams.

Perhaps. But we train people in society to be either smart or stupid, and then do we really help criminals? No, our punishing them only makes stupid more stupid and will-less more will-less. So what, since we're not responsible for their actions. They are. Except they don't have enlightened free will, or judgment abilities, which is due to lack of training. Saying they did it because they knew what they were doing and willfully became criminal, etc., is only shifting the blame and doesn't help anything. I'm not saying there's not good or bad, I'm only saying it breaks down into different skills sets. Even people we think are "good" could be very bad depending on the circumstances.

Anyway, I agree with what you say about people; they're good if they do good. They're smart if they make choices that are good for them. They maybe stupid for doing things that are bad for them, but this is a cheap way out, because it personalizes and evaluates a person, which skips over actual discernment and judgment. They're not stupid all the time. They're not incapable of learning. Punishing them doesn't help. It doesn't retrain the skills they need to achieve the purpose of not committing crimes. Calling them bad or evil only shirks our responsibility as educators.

[motherhubbard]

I had to take a little drive so I thought about this for a bit. I do have an intolerance for people who neglect or abuse children and it’s hard for me to get past that. If someone did all kinds of good for a whole nation and abused their children I wouldn’t be able to say that person was good. I probably shouldn’t be so judgmental that way. But mostly what I think is this- for the most part people are just people and that human nature brings to mind certain attributes for a reason. We are all capable of good or bad to the extreme. We deal with situations differently, but we all face the consequences of our decisions. Who is to say they could do better with my life? I would never say that I could do better than someone else. By this I mean on the sliding scale of good and bad. For the most part all of humanity is basic the same. We all want our children to grow up good. We all want to be loved and respected. We all want to feel secure. We all act impulsively at times. We all make mistakes. We have all been good and bad. Wouldn’t we have to look at the scales when all was said and done to really know which way the scales tipped?

[AimusSage]

Good and bad is irrelevant. Everyone has their own predetermined standards, often derived from childhood indoctrination. Even though these standards can be adjusted over time, they tend to be pretty rigid. It's impossible to reach a consensus on this subject, which makes it all the more interesting.

If everyone is forced to live their own existence, and everyone creates their own standards, the norm is the average of everyone. The norm 'good' isn't good at all, and 'bad' isn't bad. The stronger this norm is enforced with rules and regulations, the more difficult it becomes to deviate from this norm, narrowing the spectrum of good and bad in a society. If two societies evolve separately, both will develop a different a different norm. Interactions between such societies is a breeding ground for conflict. Insert more blabla if you want.

Anyway, deviations from the norm are generally bad for society. 'Good' deviations and 'bad' deviations tend to flock together, and as a result, will create a polarised society. This can be in many forms, and as Nicolai points out, Currently there is a tendency to judge people on their intellect. Smart or Stupid. If this continues, there will eventually be two separate cultures within the bigger overarching society. The dumb people and the smart people. This separation, if taken far enough, will strengthen social disparity and on an evolutionary path, might even split humanity into two. The smart über mensch, and the unter mensch, with a limited brain capacity.

The man who used this idea, and took it to an extreme, was of course Hitler. He tried to exterminate what he claimed was the untermensch. He was stopped, something that I, according to my standards, deem a good intervention, but the idea did of uber and untermensch did not originate with Hitler. And it did not die with him either.

So, if you take a minute to think about the question, what makes us good or bad, it all comes down to a strict social norms and values by which everyone is measured.

That's how GOOD or BAD we all are. And the best, or worst if you will, thing about it is, we're virtually powerless to do anything about it. One man can change the universe, but everyone else will turn it right back around.


Anyway, I'm rambling a bit, so I'll shut it now, before I tire myself.

...Oh pooh, too late!

[jon1jt]

I've been wondering, what is it that makes a person good? How do you judge whether or not you can consider someone to be good or not? I'm not really talking about the black and white. It is widely accepted that killing is bad, and that people who are killers are not generally considered good people. I'm asking more about that fuzzy area. The area between the paragon, who will be put up for sainthood, and the evil, muderers and such. Can you consider someone who never harms anyone, but also never gives to another a good person?

a good person begins by loving oneself.

[Profound]

I believe the following traits are very important for "good person"

Altruistic, Magnanimous, Selflessness, Compassionate and Nonjudgmental.

[Petrarch's Love]

Don't you think there are some standards of a good and bad person. True it may be somewhat subjective, but I think we can agree that Mother Theresa is a good person. I got your bottom standard on someone who doesn't do anything malicious as a bad person, but what about someone so self centered he uses people (not in any harmful way) for his own purposes without consideration for their feelings or time.

Under no standards, why should anyone attempt to be good?

As for those like Mother Teresa, who we can agree was a good person, the OP was asking for those people in the middle who are neither clear cut saints or murderous villains, which is why I didn't bring that in.

Regarding your point about self centered, though not willfully malicious people, they may fall further short of the ideal standard than a more altruistic person, but I would still be hard pressed to label such people "bad." I could certainly say that they behave badly when they act in this way, and I would have more respect and more trust in someone who did not consistently act selfishly, but I don't think it would occur to me to think of that person as "bad." I would be more likely to think in terms of being aware that one of that person's faults is selfishness. Then, depending upon my relationship with that person, and depending upon the degree to which that fault was infringing on the happiness of myself or others I would have to decide how much of a problem I felt it was and how I would respond to that person.

I think the problem I have with this question is the "good" "bad" binary. It sounds like we're just sorting people into baskets. It's much more complex than that. Certainly I think we should have standards for people. "Do no harm" is a good place to start. On the other hand, I don't know about automatically branding those who fall short of these standards as "bad." It's much easier for me to think of specific faults and the specific way and degree to which those faults are a part of an individual than it is for me to think in terms of "good" and "bad."

[NikolaiI]

I believe the following traits are very important for "good person"

Altruistic, Magnanimous, Selflessness, Compassionate and Nonjudgmental.

You are skipping empathetic, which is far more important than any you listed.

[applepie]

a good person begins by loving oneself.

It may begin by loving yourself, but can you love yourself too much? Is it possible to be focused so much on yourself, that you start to tip the scale towards being selfish to the harm of others? Perhaps it should be viewed as the ability to not only love yourself, but also the ability to love others.

[Granny5]

It may begin by loving yourself, but can you love yourself too much? Is it possible to be focused so much on yourself, that you start to tip the scale towards being selfish to the harm of others? Perhaps it should be viewed as the ability to not only love yourself, but also the ability to love others.

Meg, you've made an excellent point. I like it.

[Virgil]

As for those like Mother Teresa, who we can agree was a good person, the OP was asking for those people in the middle who are neither clear cut saints or murderous villains, which is why I didn't bring that in.

Hmm, it seems easier to establish what a good person is rather than a bad person. I wonder if it's perspective, like the glass being half full or half empty?

Regarding your point about self centered, though not willfully malicious people, they may fall further short of the ideal standard than a more altruistic person, but I would still be hard pressed to label such people "bad." I could certainly say that they behave badly when they act in this way, and I would have more respect and more trust in someone who did not consistently act selfishly, but I don't think it would occur to me to think of that person as "bad." I would be more likely to think in terms of being aware that one of that person's faults is selfishness. Then, depending upon my relationship with that person, and depending upon the degree to which that fault was infringing on the happiness of myself or others I would have to decide how much of a problem I felt it was and how I would respond to that person.

Yeah I see your point. I think "bad" is reserved for those who do harm to others. So why are we ruling that out in our criteria? A person who harms others is a bad person.

I think the problem I have with this question is the "good" "bad" binary. It sounds like we're just sorting people into baskets. It's much more complex than that. Certainly I think we should have standards for people. "Do no harm" is a good place to start. On the other hand, I don't know about automatically branding those who fall short of these standards as "bad." It's much easier for me to think of specific faults and the specific way and degree to which those faults are a part of an individual than it is for me to think in terms of "good" and "bad."

Why not? I cringe at moral relativism. Yes, there is grey area, but there is black and white too. Boundaries are neccessary and I think naturally occur.