This might have no answer.
However, just because it might be impossible to reach a conclusion via consensus, or there may be no definitive answer possible, it doesn't mean it isn't worth asking the question.
What is a good person?
In society perhaps, we spend more time defining what is a bad person, in a type of via negativa process, where if we chip away all the bad, we will be left with the good. Like a statue of David hidden in a block of marble, or a sparkling diamond yet to be cut from the rough stone. But while the list of negative qualities grows, there doesn't seem to be much put on the positive side.
Of course, the question itself is very subjective and is all about preference. Most would assume that they themselves are pretty good, no matter how cruel, prejudiced, or antisocial in behavior. Which is probably why defining the good is so difficult, because people can't really agree on what is completely negative either. And even when the vast majority can agree, there will always be outliers who will be able to justify the other side of the coin, often just to excuse themselves from bad behavior, so they can position themselves as good.
Are you a objectively good person?
I a not talking about having the potential for good, I mean objectively good. We all have the propensity for both ends of every spectrum of behavior that matters to us as a society, where an individual can display both the greatest love and the greatest cruelty - maybe even at the same time.
While we can't behave for others, observing others is useful to understand what we want from ourselves, and what we don't. We can role model the best and the worst, or we can also observe the worst and choose to act differently. None of us are completely consigned at the human level to the behavioral outcomes influenced by our genetics or environment. I can't make myself taller, but I can affect my actions.
At some point, we have to be masters of our experience, and that means taking responsibility for our behavior. Society seems to be bent on making excuses for shortcomings, instead of inspiring people to overcome challenges. And with the disconnection of the individual from the group, this has been amplified, where everyone can label themselves as a brand of good, no matter how harmful they might actually be to others.
I said to a friend today that if a person isn't adding value to society, they are taking value. He replied,
"Who defines what is valuable?
And this is the correct answer, because the statement wasn't a moral one, it was economic. Simple math, because we are all consuming resources on this planet, which means we all carry a cost. However, in a world of overpopulation, resource scarcity, and environmental degradation, the cost has to be considered with the addition of value.
Again, maybe an unanswerable question.
But also interesting to consider, because we often talk about the right of life as if life is some kind of deal that can be negotiated. But nature has no such score card, makes no trades. It doesn't care whether we live or die, not does it care if we kill ourselves by destroying the conditions that sustain out life. Nature doesn't care if we are educated, or if the air we breathe is clean, or if we have access to food. We can never disrupt nature, because nature is always in perfect balance, no matter how toxic the soil becomes, or how many hurricanes lash the coast.
It isn't bad to destroy the environment. But it is incredibly stupid, as we rely on it to support our lives.
As I get older, the more I believe we need to consider our morality as individuals, and how it fits in with the societies we benefit from. I am not talking about religious or social morality, I mean the type where a person really sits down and reflects on what is right and wrong, and why. Then, marry that position with behaviors that support it,
Do what you love?
Hmm... I don't think that leads to universally good outcomes, because some people "love" some pretty terrible things in terms of the rest of society and the harm they can cause. And while there is the extension of "as long as you don't hurt others", I always have the question of whether it means intentionally hurt directly, or does it include indirect hurt unintentionally, or through feigned ignorance.
So, what is a good person in your opinion? What traits make them good, and what would they have to do to lose good status. And then, if someone is "bad", what do they have to do in order to be good, is there any road to moral salvation, is it possible to change, or is an individual forever doomed to their fate?
We all have the propensity for good and evil - but do we have a choice in how we act?
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
I've always been partial to the belief that a lot of this can be tied back to the decisions we make. We make good ones and bad ones throughout our lives. Those decisions are also part of the path we choose. You can choose to make good decisions or you can continually choose to make bad ones. Either that or you are just really really unlucky!
I agree with you. There are a lot of bad mistakes that we can make, but some people seem to make one and then say, may as well make two more.
Yes, either that or they are just super unfortunate as I said. I know someones I think I am making the best/right decision and it ends up not being the case. Usually with my wife :)
I go the other way and assume that no matter how hard I try, I am always making the wrong decision ;D
Haha!
Dear @tarazkp !
I felt that a good person was someone who could make themselves and others happy!
Jesus in the Bible gave happiness to others by resolving their illnesses and suffering.
I enjoy talking with you!😄
And Gandalf in the Lord of the rings made magic fireworks :)
Gandalf was resurrected after dying while fighting the Balrog. Gandalf's resurrection foretold the destruction of Sauron.
A good person is a positive person. You rarely hear complaints from him, on the contrary, only faith in better events.
Some of the cruelest dictators might fit that definition :D
:)
Good is determined by virtue. The discussion of bad(sin) is typically all that reverberates but you are right to shift the topic and focus on what is good. The soft approach is to whisper these things in the dark like our favorite person in the world; Satoshi Nakamoto. Does blockchain represent virtuous economics by being immutable? Only time will tell the truth.
Yes, but virtue for one is evil for another, right? For some people, living up to moral standards might be inflicting suffering on others.
Immutability as virtue is an interesting idea to explore. At the very least, immutability delivers some form of trust that can be traced. Imagine if everyone's entire life was a searchable blockchain :D
Purity is evil to those who are impure? Thas a good one 💯😆😇 It's true and embodies the truth. Evil is Evil whereas Good is Good. Evil benefits from double speak, confusion, lies, deception, corruption, bribery the list goes on in capitalism. Blockchain was created with a purpose.
I'm a good person... if everyone was just exactly like me this would be a wonderful place.
Every day I try to be more like you. I try.
It's interesting that how you actually dive into the complexities of the explanation of goodness among all these societal constructs and individual behaviors. Considering the moral compass you advocate for, how do you believe collective self observation could influence broader societal norms and values?
I think at least, if we were more in touch with our own morality, we would realize that we need to do well by others also and maybe then, start rebuilding communities and families that have largely been eroded away.
really high thoughts, appreciatable.
I believe we can be two sides of the same coin, terribly selfish and self-serving as well as empathetic and caring.
I believe that being good is a state of consciousness and we will never be perfectly good.
I believe that morality is fickle and malleable, depending on what a group of individuals consider it to be.
I believe that we can act more in function of our own good than our own evil.
Can a rich person dispense with his natural resources in order not to pollute the environment any more, even if it means losing his status in life?
Can a low-income person work sustainably to support his family?
I believe that everything can be from the conscience of each one.
Morality as a social construct is fickle, but should it be as fickle as an individual's? Most people seem to consider themselves in good moral standing, but have never actually reflected on what that means, cross-referenced with their own behaviors. What would we find if we actually evaluated ourselves well?
We would find that we are not perfect, and if perfection is given by being a good person, we will never be 100%...and we would come back to the question: What does it mean to be a good person?
It is always a loop.
Sorry, but I'm a terrible analyst...😔
Nature has its own order and will always find a way to exist, but I am not sure about us...
We will likely always find a way to destroy ourselves.
Congratulations @tarazkp! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 1600000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts:
Hmm
This got me thinking if I’m really a good person or I’m just saying I’m good just because it is me😅
Anyway, I’m a good person and I’m glad about that. No one will ever come out to say that he or she is bad no matter what he has been doing
I think it boils down to the golden rule. Do unto others what you want others to do unto you. This can be the minimum guide that people can live by. Just imagine oneself in another person's shoe and think of what needs to be done. By doing so, we'll probably see less suffering and pain, and more happiness all around.