A Visitor to Dialectic raised the question “What do philosophers consider a 'good' person is? Is it simply someone whose good deeds outweigh their bad deeds?” – it is pertinent question worthy of discussion whenever it is raised and so the Editors would like to present it for open discussion.
What is a good person?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Tricky. I mean it is a tricky question, not that a tricky person is a good person. Not that I could say for sure that they are not. I'll work on an answer, but it might take a while.
Surely some of the people here who have had an opinion on other matters can come up with something for this?
I'm not sure how to answer this without getting into other issues. I'm inclined to say that a good person is a just person, or a person that acts in accordance with the principle of justice. Having said that some will want to suggest that it takes more than simple actions to make an individual a 'good' person.
This is a question that is more complicated than it apparently appears. I agree with Mr Douglas that it cannot be answered without going into other areas, but I contest his equation of ‘good’ with ‘just’ – a good individual need not be just, nor a just individual good.
Intuitively, like the Poser of the question, one is inclined to reason that a ‘good’ individual (‘person’ is a problematic term often best avoided) is one whose number of ‘good’ deeds is greater than their number of ‘bad’ deeds when the sum total of their actions is tallied. In practical terms – a good individual is one who does good things. But this position seems naive; it would force us to say that an individual who committed heinous crimes against humanity (say a eugenic massacre) but who regularly assisted elderly women by carrying their shopping, donated large sums of money to charity, and regularly gave blood (and many other ‘good’ things) was a good individual, a concession that we may be uninclined to make (it amounts to a statement along the lines ‘Hitler was a good person who did bad things’ – most individuals would rather simply think of Hitler as a bad person). The way of avoiding such a concession is to ascribe values to actions – allocating each different action with its own value; in explanation, while occurrence of assisting an elderly lady, donating to charity, and giving blood might be valued at plus three, plus five, and plus four respectively, each crime against humanity might be valued at minus one million so that no matter how many good deeds the hypothetical individual has done it is highly unlikely the final tally would be in the positive.
The process of valuing acts is where things become problematic. Utilitarianism, for example, had had difficulties when it comes to valuing ends for comparison since simply numeric values do not appear to be apt, and no viable alternative system that will enable functioning utilitarian calculi has been proposed. It is the process of ascribing values that Nietzsche examines in ‘Beyond Good and Evil’ and ‘The Genealogy of Morals’, his argument – as I understand it – being that the difference between the Hellenic and the Christian ethical systems is how they ascribe value. Hence there is a considerable difference between what a Hellenic and a modern would consider to be a ‘good’ individual.
Personally, I am inclined to agree with the various Hellenic and Hellenistic ethicists who have argued that a ‘good’ individual is one who aspires to their own success within the confines of virtue. This avoids the problem of having to balance good and bad act, it also implies just conduct without making ‘just’ synonymous with ‘good’. Further, the designation of ‘good’ relies on something more than actions – intention is important in the consideration of whether an individual is good. This last point is important because an individual should not aspire to being ‘good’, rather to be a good individual they should aspire to living successfully, and to being classically virtuous while doing so.
Hence, a ‘good’ individual is more than simply someone who does ‘good’ things, and more than someone who lives in accord with the principles of justice.
So where does apathy fit into this equation?? Cooly, I disagree with 'A good person is one who within reasonable bounds can be said to be a character who has no desire to adversely effect others'. You can be the most mundane and apathetic person and have absolutely no desire to have adverse effects on others, but that does not make you a good person. I dont think that merely not being bad (but not being good either) makes someone good. I have alot of issues with apathy. I'm tempted just to put it in the same basket as bad. On one hand it isn't fair I suppose, but on the other hand I think it completly is. The unfair hand says you have the right to live your life as you wish without unwantedly reaching into others lives. The other hand says we all have a responsibilty of some description, and true empathy should make us all alot more concerned about the world around us. By ignoring empathy you lay the path for apathy- or you simply don't care. in the 2nd case, how can that make someone a good person??? (the first case too really) Not doing either good deeds or bad ones simply because you don't give a flying f$&* about other people in the world. I guess this depends on if being good to other people is a precursor to being 'good'? I know apathy isn't the same as bad. It also isn't the same as good. I keep thinking on a line graph, where good is at one end, and evil the other, but i can't figure out where apathy should go. I don't think it should be in the middle. Can't put why in words jsut yet, but don't think it should. Also shouldn't neccesarily go any closer to bad...hmmm. We need some kind of crazy 3d graph maybe. Well, huzzuh for my first real comment, please, your thoughts on apathy... :)
An unrelated idea...
How the hell does the idea of the end of history work??? It's come up a few times now and it seems to be a very random idea. How can history end??!?!
Ms Wallin – I think that there is a need to be careful in how you approach ‘apathy’. I think that your good-bad line graph is not really the place to locate apathy, it should actually be placed on a different line graph. I think that, to use the Aristotelian model of ‘excess – mean – deficiency’, apathy would have to be a deficiency (though I have failed to come up with the mean and the excess). Now, this model correlates the virtuous with the mean (that is, a good individual is one who lives a virtuous, or moderate, life). So, an apathetic individual is deficient, but this does not make them bad. Rather, an individual can only be considered ‘bad’ when they actively pursue harmful ends – if their apathy costs another individual inordinately, then the apathetic may be considered bad.
Does this resolve your issue?
You'll have to clarify your last sentence for me. I know that in the scheme of 'good' and 'bad' apathy does not neccesarily sit in the same place, but I put it together here are we were talking about what made a person good. I concluded this therefore would involved either good or bad actions (fair?) and as actions were involved, I figured it was fair to bring in apathy. I guess I'm just on a bit of an apathy rant with VSU and stuff anyways. there's something else here...but too tired. more on this later, I know I have a point hiding somewhere....
Question...What is the opposite of evil??? I don't believe its good...Evil is a much more intense thing than good. Good can be quite hum drum, while evil is worse than bad. if you consider than evil acts are predomininately selfish acts, can we say that the opposite of evil acts are selfless acts??? I don't think we entirely can, because thats still too broad, but it was interesting. hmmmm...
A reply to Ms Wallin
If we accept that an individuals may be considered either good or bad, then we must hold that these are ‘sum condition descriptions’ – that is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ describe the total of an individual’s actions.
My claim is that while an individual may be ‘good’ or ‘bad’, they may also be excessive, virtuous, or deficient. That is, an individual’s action in a situation may be either too much, too little, or just right. Hence, excessive, virtuous, and deficient may be considered ‘reaction descriptions’. The ‘reaction descriptions’ cannot be used as a sole basis for the classification of an individual as either good or bad. Simply, it does not make sense to claim that an individual is bad simply because they are deficient. An example should assist: an individual, A, lives a generally virtuous life. A has just the right reaction to each situation, except for tidiness – it may be weeks or months between the instances of A vacuuming and dusting their residence – which really has no impact on anyone other than A personally, and this impact is minimal. It does not seem correct to claim that A, who appears to generally be a good person, is bad because they cannot be bothered tidying their own home. It does seem correct, though, to consider that A is deficient.
Generally, it seems possible to consider the simply apathetic (that is, those whose sole deficiency is their apathy) akin to the untidy. (My hope with this analogy is that the untidy might actually be considered apathetic towards cleanliness). While they might live otherwise good lives, they are deficient in one particular area. Can should individuals be considered bad simply because they are deficient in one area? No.
To return to the question you asked of myself, the point of “an individual can only be considered ‘bad’ when they actively pursue harmful ends – if their apathy costs another individual inordinately, then the apathetic may be considered bad” was to try to put a price on when apathetic becomes bad. To explain. It can be assumed that the general course of A’s activities may have a cost on B’s life. A buying the last copy of a magazine from a newsagent means that B cannot buy it, should B want it, so be is slightly inconvenienced. There are probably hundreds of actions that every individual undertakes everyday that have such unknowable impacts, and these impacts may be considered the ordinary costs of actions. Apathy in general may have such results; A might decide not to collect the mail because A is apathetic towards the mail service, which results in an inconvenience for B. While, in general, apathetic actions might have minor costs, there are also occasions when apathy results in inordinate costs; A fails to adequately put out a camp fire, which then results in a bushfire that burns down B’s house. In such situations, it is A’s apathy that is active when A makes the decision not to act, so A is actively pursuing a harmful end, when then results in a inordinate cost on B, and hence A can be considered ‘bad’.
Has this clarified my position?
Post Script - Apologies for ignoring the posts of the last two days in preparing this reply. On reading them, I do not think that they have an impact on my position as I have developed it thus far.
I have to agree with much that has been said contra apathy. I think that framing the question in terms of 'action' rather than 'choice' is what causes the attitude that basically states: 'If I don't act to contribute to a situation, then I have no moral connection to the situation.' This is a postition that really annoys me, mostly because I first came into contact with it via selfish new - age types who were so scared of soiling their own karma, that they would not help anyone except themselves.
Having said that, it is plasuible, and generally accepted that the despondent in particular, may be in their state due to factors outside of their control, hence my aversion to putting too much weight on personal responsibility.
Response to Martin-
Just a short disclaimer- I am attempting to argue with Honours philosophy geniuses. We all know I’ll be got at every turn, but this is interesting good practice, so bear with me.
“If we accept that an individual may be considered either good or bad, then we must hold that these are ‘sum condition descriptions’ – that is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ describe the total of an individual’s actions.” -----So how is this measured? Is it a matter of your average of good and bad things? 49% of the time I do ‘good’ things, and 51% of the time I do ‘bad’ things, so I am a ‘bad’ person? As you say, I don’t know if we really need or can accept people as entirely ‘good’ or ‘bad’. As for the excessive, virtuous, or deficient argument, I quite like it. What about detrimental?? In any situation, I could do too much (excessive, and possibly this is where detrimental is covered??), just the perfect response (virtuous), or not enough (deficient), or I could do something which purposely or accidentally makes the situation worse (detrimental). In terms of talking about what makes a person ‘good’ though I feel its more of an argument about intent (to some extent) than situational response. i.e- if ex, vir, def refer to the result of an action to situation, intent need not be involved. If I see a small fire jump off my bonfire in the backyard, I want to put it out so it doesn’t get bigger and burn down my house where (so I don’t get in trouble just for wanting to save ‘things’), my grandmother is asleep with 2 broken legs with a 3 month year old baby sleeping in a crib next to her. My intention is good and virtuous. However, I’m a bit stupid, and I think that blowing on this fire is a good way to go. I make the fire bigger, and because this is my analogy, it conveniently gets huge and burns down my house. My response to this situation was not excessive or virtuous. It was possibly deficient, because I was stupid and ignorant enough not to know that fire likes oxygen, but even more so my actions were detrimental, because, even though it was unintentional, I assisted the fire to grow. Possibly detrimental doesn’t need to be included, as it was a follow on from my deficiency, but I also could have just sat there and done nothing. Maybe there’s an interesting apathy argument hiding in those words somewhere…
“While, in general, apathetic actions might have minor costs, there are also occasions when apathy results in inordinate costs; A fails to adequately put out a camp fire, which then results in a bushfire that burns down B’s house. In such situations, it is A’s apathy that is active when A makes the decision not to act, so A is actively pursuing a harmful end, when then results in a inordinate cost on B, and hence A can be considered ‘bad’.” --- This is you giving an eg of when apathy can be considered bad correct?? So ironically, the apathy needs to be active. (that’s not a point, I just liked it). I agree. As before this just seems to point to the idea that there is no definite ‘good’ person, there are just responses to various situations. Still, I know that’s not adequate too because we still judge the actions based on our concept of these ideas.
A Response to Sam-
Being somewhere who is rather pissed off with hippies myself at the moment, I understand where you are coming from. Let me just clarify- 'If I don't act to contribute to a situation (You mean positive change/action things), then I have no moral connection to the situation.' (I have no moral position or cares on the matter if I am not involved directly with action). Is that what you’re saying there? If so, and your selfish new age types really were selfish, then that wasn’t their position. It was their rhetoric, but not really what they truly believed if they were selfish. With that in mind, it’s worthwhile not to whitewash the whole issue in light of the people who really don’t function in line with that view in anycase.
If you get a chance, can you extend on 'action' rather than 'choice', and your last sentence about factors out of control and personal responsibility?
So is any action required of this empathy?? If you are able to conceive that if you were a puppy you wouldn't like being poked with a stick and understand how that would feel (i.e using empathy) but then you still did it surely thats worse. I think that maybe 'good' is just too weak a word. Its a bit insipid and I'm thinking in big term amazaing or awful things here. As I said before- is good really the opposite of evil? Surely bad is. Is good different because good is by definition the best good, but then surely bad by definition should be the worst bad, yet we would all say evil is worse than bad.
Let me just clarify...the reason for rail-roading this discussion onto apathy was based on the idea that it is action and not intent that determines a person. Same can apply to the now 'evil' person argument.
I am going to ask for a certain amount of patience with regard to this discussion. I am contemplating a note for a forthcomming Club meeting - probably the 24th - where I hope to be able to try and clarify a few things of the things that have become invovled in this discussion.
One of the relevant issues, Ms Rosie, is the relationship between good, bad, and evil; I think that the basis for any answer of that question is to be found in Nietzsche's 'Beyond Good and Evil' and 'Gen. of Morals'. If granted a little leave, I will review a few things and hopefully return with a satisfactory reply.
Yes please. Bring on the Nietzsche workshop! What ideas of his exactly are relevant here??
Cooly- "There is no action required of this empathy, but it will make itself known through its concrete forms. " Sorry? is that the empathy making itself known through concrete forms? what is that other than actions. Some of you points are fine here, but there's still that little niggling thing about apathy thats in play here that I haven't figured out how to say yet. AS for being born into a well off country and causing lots of indirect harm, thats a bit of a rough argument. true to some extent, but thats no reason to resign our selves to how bad we are so not do anything. Fits in with this-
We are here- not the best place with some very yukky things in it.
We want to be here- a very lovely place with no or few messy things in it.
they are a long way a part, and in the middle is this- lksfhsjkhdfksjfksfs(i.e a lot of messy confusing stuff that seems to go on for ages)
Becuase of all the messy stuff in the middle, no one makes the step into in from where we are to where we want to be. But if we all take lots of little steps into 'the big messy', we move the 'where we are point' a little closer to where we want to be, and although its been hard, we've conquered a little bit of messy. For many people this step into the mess is very diffcult, and considered pointless because where we want to be is so far away, but its very simple to see that a little bit closer is simply a few more 'little bit closer's' away from where we want to be. So this argument frustrates me becuase its so obviously crap. Of course each little bit counts. Everything is only made up of the little bits!
Can we have a real discussion in person about this one day?!?
one man can say ...a man is born good..one man can say a man is born bad...what makes a person good is defied on how they rule their lives..its touchy but it ties to so many other topics...what religion?what culture? the list goes on
Mr McCool - A brief question. When you write "The place where you have the ability to act most readily is towards those who you actually come into contact with" do you include the 'self' as one of those we come into contact with, or do you refer simply to others?
I inquire because I would contend that, ethically, the sphere where you have the greatest ability to act is the self. One is more able to govern ones own responses than to influence the responses of others. It is a kin of this idea that takes form in Stoic philosophy, as I understand it.
Post a Comment