What makes a good person?

[applepie]

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?

[Pensive]

Good question. I also find myself wondering about it a lot. Haven't found an answer quite satisfactory yet. 'Good' and 'terms' are some terms when used for people are just like the words 'perfection', 'sincerity', 'selfishness', 'love' and 'silence.' These are complex words and I think we should only use them when much needed and refrain from putting people into such categories.

[cactus]

For me, a good person is someone who stops to question his/her deeds and on occasion is tormented by guilt for minor things such as hurting someone's feelings... you get the jist of it. A good person would have a certain set of principles and morals and strives to live by those principles and morals.

[Shalot]

I think cactus sums it up for me. Also, I'd like to add that people go through stages in their lives and while some person or teenager may seem like a bad apple, that doesn't necessarily mean that person is bad through and through. and of course, there are some things we do that can never be undone or taken back.

[NikolaiI]

I am sort of glad to see this thread, as I'd like to share my opinion on this topic. To explain might be a little difficult. I think it's too easy to call someone "good" or "bad" and it misses the mark. The reasons we do what we do isn't because we are good or bad- it isn't because we have a strong or weak-willed character, it's because of the skills and tools we have learned, been taught, and been indoctrinated with. In this sense I agree with cactus about morality, but it's not that simple, as there are more things involved: I don't know precisely all the functions which go into having the ability to make a good choice, but it'd be something like reasoning, discernment, knowledge of good and bad, judgment, but even "judgment" includes a lot of other smaller skills. Dunno if I'm making any sense yet but consider this; is a "good" person good all the time? Not very likely; and is a "bad" person bad all the time?

To go back to my first point with an example; take the criminal for instance- rather, just someone who makes bad choices, which mess up their life. Let's say they are unable to keep a job or something. Well, we might simply say that they need more willpower, if they had it, they would have kept their job. But in reality, they might not have the skills to keep the job, which doesn't have anything to do with will-power. Or perhaps they have all the right skills, they just need to be in a different job. But the skills or tools required in keeping a job are more complex than any one-word descriptions of character.


(actually I realize that the skills I listed are sort of the same...*blah* I'm tired, but does anyone get my point?)

Okay, how about this skill set: knowledge, concentration, working memory, and decision making...these are the skills which influence both how we do on a math test, and most other situations. It's not our willfulness, or our character.

[schadenfreude]

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?

[Chava]

How odd, I've never used good or bad as a classification for people.

[Pensive]

How odd, I've never used good or bad as a classification for people

This I believe is a really good thing. Whenever I had this urge to call someone bad, I thought why not look at myself first and frankly I have never been able to understand myself fully, to grasp what I really am. To put myself into any such category seems to be impossible to me. I don't think I should be able to do that for other people so surely in such a case as well.

Or probably a good answer to this question can be taking 'goodness' as an opinion (for example George Eliot is the best writer I have ever read or I don't think Dan Brown's works are good at all) but when taking it as an opinion, we should remember that it's not a fact. And also remember that giving opinions about people is very different from those about some 'things'....and we should take in consideration that we can be wrong too.....and there is no hard or fast rule...and why we shouldn't too sure about human-beings either being good or bad? I think the answer to this can be that we are changing in every moment. It's like we can serve as the best thing yet the worst, and we can even make up for our display of bad (at least to most of the extent)...we are not things.

[Petrarch's Love]

How odd, I've never used good or bad as a classification for people.

I'm with Chava. I really never think of people in categories of "good" or "bad." After thinking about the question on this thread a little, I'm not at all comfortable with judging others as good or bad people. I think I do have my own idea of what an ideal good person would be, which I strive to live up to (and certainly fail at in many ways), but I don't think I have some sort of ideal standard in my mind that other people have to live up to for me to deem them good (that is if, as the OP said, we are mainly considering people who do not maliciously and willfully do harm to others, since that really is a pretty basic standard).

[AuntShecky]

Define "good."
Define "person."

[Virgil]

I'm with Chava. I really never think of people in categories of "good" or "bad." After thinking about the question on this thread a little, I'm not at all comfortable with judging others as good or bad people. I think I do have my own idea of what an ideal good person would be, which I strive to live up to (and certainly fail at in many ways), but I don't think I have some sort of ideal standard in my mind that other people have to live up to for me to deem them good (that is if, as the OP said, we are mainly considering people who do not maliciously and willfully do harm to others, since that really is a pretty basic standard).

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?

[Chava]

Well frankly i think that good or bad is a very imprecise description. As for the no standards, i don't think my life standards relate to being good.
I try to be nice, because people willl appreciate it.
I just think it's too general both as a description, and as a standard for behaviour.
It occurs to me actually, that keeping the abstractness of "good" in mind, it's odd that some people tell their kids to "be good" how are they meant to interpret that?

[Granny5]

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?

"Good" is subjective, I think. But we all know the general standards of society that are accepted as good. For me, a good person is one who does not do things to hurt others with malice. They do not cheat or lie in order to better their lot in life at the expense of others. Before making a decision, they consider how their decision will affect will effect others. They TRY to do no harm. A lot of our decisions and acts have a negative affect on others, but a good person will try their best not to do harm. And they truly care about others.

[Virgil]

I try to be nice, because people willl appreciate it.


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?

[Granny5]

Being good is for the person trying to be a good person. I don't care really if anyone appreciates it or not. I just like to treat people kindly. It is for me because it makes me feel "good".

[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. :yawnb:

...Oh pooh, too late! :flare:

[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.

[Granny5]

I can't think of a person as "good" if they do harm to someone else maliciously, whether it physical or mental. There are people who appear to be good, kind people who would cut their mother's throat if it would bring them a promotion or put them in a better place. Taking unearned credit, lying, and cheating are not what a "good" person does. There are people who separate their lives in sections, work and personal life, and the rules that apply to personal life don't apply to work. I believe that they do. Harm done to someone in the workplace is still harm. A truly good person is good in all aspects of their life.

[NikolaiI]

Yes, that's true, Granny5, but most everyone loses their perspective now and then at least. Still, I like that you hold people kinda to a higher standard.

[Petrarch's Love]

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.

Agreed.


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.

I am not advocating moral relativism. What I am saying is that I think the terms of this debate are too simplistic. I have no problem saying that a person's behaviour is bad, and if they consistently exhibit said bad behavior I think there should be appropriate consequences. Perhaps one thing we need to sort out is what sort of standards we're talking about. There are societal standards governed by laws and there are personal standards. To some extent I think you're right that both kinds of standards naturally occur, but there are grey edges. If you're talking about boundaries we set as a society through laws, then I would agree that most of the time if someone breaks the law I think they should pay the consequences. Most laws are fairly obvious "natural" boundaries that I think we could all agree on: don't kill, don't steal, don't run red lights etc. Even on this level, however, I am not going to make the statement that everyone who breaks a law is bad because the boundaries of the legal system are not always clear cut standards that everyone does or should agree with. There can be (and have been) unjust laws. Not too long ago historically speaking black people would be considered "bad" just for sitting at the same lunch counter as white people for example. There can also be mitigating circumstances to a crime, which is why our legal system is set up to judge on a case by case basis. It's also why we have a system that is mutable enough that we can adjust what we deem "bad," because the system itself is not without flaws.

If we're talking about judging people on a personal level, then again I think judging people on a case by case basis is often easier than making blanket statements. As with societal judgement, yes there are certain boundaries that are fairly "natural," but it really isn't always easy to decide when you judge a whole person to be "bad." It is much easier to decide whether you will tolerate a certain fault, which is one aspect of a person. Perhaps the issue of prejudice would make a good example. Usually this is an issue I have no tolerance for and one I would be tempted to brand people as "bad" for engaging in. Certainly, on the extreme end, there's probably no way I'm ever going to think well of skinheads who paint swastikas on the side of a building and then beat someone up. That is bad. I also generally refuse to associate with someone who makes frequent racist remarks because I do believe that prejudice is a very serious issue and the root of much evil in the world. Much as I loathe the attitude and behavior, however, I am not sure that I can say that everyone who makes a racist statement is a bad person. I think the statement they made is bad and their outlook is bad, and certainly I think it should be stopped and will tell them so, but in some cases I am aware that this is an ignorant behavior that needs to be stopped, not necessarily an overall bad person.

Sometimes prejudice is indeed a symptom of a generally mean spirit, but I can think of a couple examples in my own life where it wasn't. One was a young woman who was my neighbor in the dorm in college. She routinely made prejudiced statements (usually in the guise of humor) that, on at least one occasion, actually made a friend of mine cry. Naturally I was angry and did not like her because of this, but I did realize on a certain level that this was just a glaringly bad fault in an otherwise apparently O.K. person. After the incident that hurt my friend I waited until my anger had subsided and then went over with a cup of tea and had a serious talk with the girl, basically telling her that my friend was a human being who had the right to not be talked about in that way and that saying these things reflected badly on the person saying them. This does not always work, of course, but in this case it seems that this person had come from an unimaginably non-diverse community and was unimaginative enough that she really hadn't ever reflected on how hurtful she was being. It did not happen right away, but gradually this girl did begin to get to know people who were different from herself and eventually overcame her prejudice. She is, in fact, now friends with the same friend of mine that she upset so much. I'm not sure that that would have come about if all of us had just written her off as "bad." To take another example, I had a great aunt, who I really only knew in the last couple years of her life when she was in her late 80's. She would sometimes make statements that I absolutely would not tolerate from a younger person (mostly stereotypes in the "those people" vein), but because she was an old lady in a rest home who really wasn't influencing anyone, and because she was actually too old to go through the process of learning what a fault it was to be prejudiced, I let it go. I knew that this was a fault of ignorance in an otherwise kind old woman. It did not make her a bad person. It made her a person who was flawed. This is the kind of thing I mean when I say that it's easier for me to think of specific faults and the way they are played out in an individual personality than to think of people as simply "bad" and "good."


No one replies to my posts. Ever. Except for new people with like 3 posts. Just wanted to point that out. Do you guys not like me or something? I read your posts. I always do. I almost always read all the posts before I post in a thread.

Nikolai--I'm sorry if you're feeling left out. I don't think anyone dislikes you. I think there are just a lot of people on this forum and sometimes people don't have time to respond to everything that's posted. I've certainly had many brilliant posts of my own go unanswered. :p One simple way I've noticed to integrate yourself into a conversation is to quote what another person is saying and respond directly to that point when making your own point. That makes it a little more likely that at least the person you quoted will perk up and respond. Just look at the amount of response Virg. got out of me by quoting and disagreeing with my point above (though, in light of that, perhaps you should be careful what you wish for, since some posters can be a tad verbose :lol: ). That said, here is a quote from you that I agree with:


You are skipping empathetic, which is far more important than any you listed. I agree with you that empathy is an important quality. Truly understanding another person's feelings can go a long way toward motivating you to be good to others.

[NikolaiI]

Haha, thanks Petrarch's. I'm not obsessed about it; I shouldn't complain, I just randomly give in to the urge occasionally, like then. I changed that post though, so now people will be ???????? to your post :D especially since you didn't include my name. ('Bout to try to arrange a post in reply to the issue)

So, what I come back to is empathy, yeah. I mean- that's the term we use, but I mean, what I want to present is an objective view of things. We're all different people but we're linked by the fact that we all feel basically the same things. Isn't understanding this one of the main reasons we work towards the peace and happiness of others, as well as ourselves? On another thread we were talking about detaching ourselves from our passions and aggressions to be able to see things objectively, and I think the same's needed here, if we're able to understand this issue.

First of all the idea of ego or self. Dunno what everyone here thinks (I'm sure incredibly varied ideas 'bout it!) but anyway, it seems when we talk about this (the self, ego) then we try to make it a reality, when it's not. I mean like a physical reality instead of something "metaphysical." The same is true for calling someone stupid, unworthy or brilliant. They're vague, and they're not accurate.

Another thing is that people usually work towards whatever they think is "good." So in the case of the neo-Nazi, he is working what he (Probably Fanatically) believes to be "good," the purification or the human race. His purpose is purity. This is a purpose which is natural and good, but in his case, it involves killing and hurting other people. We view this as bad, but unless we believe it's divine knowledge that it's bad, we have to recognize it's just our opinion, and just majority opinion, that gives it weight.

[applepie]

Haha, thanks Petrarch's. I'm not obsessed about it; I shouldn't complain, I just randomly give in to the urge occasionally, like then. I changed that post though, so now people will be ???????? to your post :D especially since you didn't include my name. ('Bout to try to arrange a post in reply to the issue)

I'm not trying to ignore you:) I've just been sitting back and seeing what everyone else thinks on the subject. I know, it's a little unfair to ask a question and never add in your own perspective. I'm about to change that, but I really wanted to see what others thought before adding my two cents.

Most of my view on it ties into your idea that people must be able to be empathetic. I think that this is one of the most important qualities in someone who has the capability of falling more in the good than the bad. People who are able to feel another's pain and see things from a different perspective are more likely to do a few things different when they behave in a manner that isn't kind. I don't generally think that you have to do no wrong to be a good person. Good people make horrible mistakes all the time. The difference between someone who is good at heart and someone who is not is the ability to feel guilt and make amends over these actions. Good people can acknowledge that their actions were unkind and attempt to make amends for their behavior. If a good person says something hurtful, they will apologize to relieve their guilt at causing harm to another. Someone who can not, or refuses to be, empathetic will not take this step. There is no need to make amends for their behavior because they are incapable of seeing that their behavior caused hurt in another. People who are not really good can still do good things, but often they are for their own sense of accomplishment. They may make donations to charities, but it is not out of a sense of kindness. Rather their kindness stems from a need to elevate their position in the eyes of others.

[Granny5]

Meg, well said. I wonder if I had sat back and waited if I could have expressed myself so well. ( I don't really think so. )

[Virgil]

Agreed.



I am not advocating moral relativism. What I am saying is that I think the terms of this debate are too simplistic. I have no problem saying that a person's behaviour is bad, and if they consistently exhibit said bad behavior I think there should be appropriate consequences. Perhaps one thing we need to sort out is what sort of standards we're talking about. There are societal standards governed by laws and there are personal standards. To some extent I think you're ...but because she was an old lady in a rest home who really wasn't influencing anyone, and because she was actually too old to go through the process of learning what a fault it was to be prejudiced, I let it go. I knew that this was a fault of ignorance in an otherwise kind old woman. It did not make her a bad person. It made her a person who was flawed. This is the kind of thing I mean when I say that it's easier for me to think of specific faults and the way they are played out in an individual personality than to think of people as simply "bad" and "good."

Great post Petrarch. I think we essentially agree, and with Nicolai's comment on empathy as the source of goodness, I think we have bound this issue very well.

[Kosmic_Karma]

The philosophical debate of what makes a person ‘good’ is one that will be discussed forever because no one answer will satisfy everyone. There are many ideas about what makes a person good: morals, religion, actions. A person is defined by the intentions of their actions; it’s what makes a person good or bad.

As long as the person believes whole heartedly they are doing the right thing, given all the information they have and can get, then they are "good".

[Scheherazade]

The philosophical debate of what makes a person ‘good’ is one that will be discussed forever because no one answer will satisfy everyone. There are many ideas about what makes a person good: morals, religion, actions. A person is defined by the intentions of their actions; it’s what makes a person good or bad.

As long as the person believes whole heartedly they are doing the right thing, given all the information they have and can get, then they are "good".That makes me wonder if it is possible to call anyone "good" or "bad" all together... If it is not the person but the intentions that are good or bad.

Moreover, none of us is "good" through and through. We might have good intentions on certain occassions and not so at other times.