• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

What do you think it means to be TRULY good?

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
No one defined what good actually is. I admit, I believe in the existance of a metaphysical good and this is what I refer to when I discuss the subject. Honestly, I'm still working on the concept. But, the character of what I consider is good, is not just confined to what benefits me personally.

As far as I can tell the most definite good is letting other people achieve their own goals as long as they are not at others expense, which is why harmlessness is more important in my mind than active do-gooding. And arbitrary morals make for more damage when actively enforcing them than when your focus is not trying to infringe.

But deciding you must not act is an arbitrary moral, too, and it certainly does harm when you have the power to relatively easily prevent murder, or starvation, or something like that. Those people having their lives cut short are certainly having the chance to achieve their own goals taken away from them, and I can blame you in part for not saving them when it was in your power.

I myself don't assume letting someone achieve a goal is inherently good (unless we extremely vaguely take the other person's goal to be achieving happiness, not at the greater expense of the happiness of others). I try to go by a kind of quantitative happiness principle.

There's little that is certain in life. You can give a hobo $20 and he could use it to buy everclear and drink himself to death. You can murder someone in cold blood and stop the multi-lane multi-death traffic accident that he would've caused tomorrow. Suffering can create art, pleasure can blind. Judging by outcomes is flawed, at what link do you stop judging? The first in the chain, the second, the third? Which effects take precedence?

Everything is flawed. This gets back to why I say moral behavior shouldn't be judged like it's boolean. It may not be satisfying to a lot of people, but my answer is that you do the best you can. You try to encompass the broadest scope of time, space, and degrees of separation that you can. The better our knowledge and rationality, the better a job we'll do on that front. And as flawed as our minds typically are right now (and may always will be) I do believe, in a general sense, that the odds of getting something done becomes a lot higher where there is a rationale and knowledge driven attempt to do it. No where near perfect, but better than nothing at all.

The effects that take precedent would relate to a kind of philosophical number crunching, if you will. If you go buy a typical mantra like the most happiness, for the most people, for the longest period of time, then you have something of an outline (my thoughts get more complex than those words left in their own vagueness). Sometimes a prediction is very difficult to make, but then sometimes, not so much.

The obvious one being that if you know everyone is going to die, you know about as well as you can know anything that they aren't coming back, that the human race is done, and there won't be humans appreciating anything anymore. It's a prediction I can make into eternity. That prediction can then be factored into a moral analysis whenever it might come up (blowing up the earth is bad, mm'kay?). I know most predictions won't be that easy, but rather than being the basis for getting rid of what is probably the most functional approach to morality, it should instead just be more incentive to gain insight.

In the end, I know that I want to live, so I will not impede others from the same. Goodness is not something that I enforce on other people's actions, but is something that only I can truthfully exercise. I do good if, with the knowledge I have, I know that no one was dimished by my actions. If I was mistaken, I take warning on my next decision. Goodness is being able to live with my own decisions. It's an internal process.

There are some people that want to die, and they may be justified in that. Would you not do them the kindess of killing them? And would you still stand idle as those who want to live are killed by others? Isn't your decision inevitably going to be interpretable as the allowance of a person's death one way or the other? Is it okay if someone is diminished by your inactions?

And how would you know? You say you would with the knowledge you have. How is that much easier than trying to know what I say you should try to know in moral matters?

If goodness is ultimately that internal, based that much on how you feel about yourself, then it really is of no relevance to anyone else and I think it qualifies as sort of a solipsistic ethic.

I was being imprecise.

/unpardonable INTP crime

Of course by us, I meant sentient life via the mechanism of evolution. Altruism isn't limited to homo sapiens.

Nahh, you're pardoned. :D

Gosh, don't go all aspie on me!
The "natural" (or default, whatever you want to call it) response to any threat is to preserve self. Even seemingly cooperative societies - like ants and bees - are self-serving when you do the genetic math (all individuals in a unit are closely related). One of the hardest things for evolutionary psychologists to explain has been 'from whence, altruism?' or kindness to unrelated individuals. And we have game theory to thank for the solution, as you suggest. Competitive altruism, etc. Everything reduces to self-interest - if only at the level of the gene. Morality and altruism are illusory. We value them in ourselves because society values them. And society values them because it means this person might sacrifice themselves for ME. It's ultimately selfish to love goodness.

Hmm. But often not even at a human level, but the gene like you say. In this case both the impact is ultimately one that you could think of as a greater good and the intention and self-awareness of the persons involved is not consciously calculating or selfish. In the sense of the selfish gene, is self-interested behavior, but it almost falls off the human radar. From a similar level of analysis it would be true to say that ego and will are also illusions. I'm not exactly sure how to put this, but it's sort of like these things are beneath the grasp of human thinking, not even capable of entering into a consideration of how to actually try living.

I wish I could come up with a better way of putting that.

Sometimes I hate being a Rational.

It was one rational to another in a philosophy discussion. The power of persnicket compels you. Or frustrates and stifles you. Pretty much the same thing, right?

I often regret entering lengthy discussions on this forum, too. This time, I'm not the one. I still have time yet, however.
 
Last edited:

CzeCze

RETIRED
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
8,975
MBTI Type
GONE
A good person is not necessarily innocent and guiless. If you lack an u derstanding of the world you can be "good" but also ill equipped to survive in the world. I think it is more than possible to know evil, to understand the basest motivations ans tendencies in humanity, and be good precisely bevsuse of and not in spite of this knowledge.
 

Tamske

Writing...
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,764
MBTI Type
ENTP
I think it's doing the best you can do. Human morals have changed and will change still.
The Romans kept slaves, the Americans kept slaves while in Europe it was abolished in the Middle Ages. I still can't wrap my head around the fact that slavery still existed (or is it EXISTS??) beyond the Middle Ages. But they didn't have problems with it.
In the same vein, I'm sure I'll hold opinions and maybe do things that people from a later century will deem evil.

What's a good human? Someone who, given all the knowlegde and opinions he's heard and understood, chooses the path which would lead to the least of pain and the most of joy. For everybody.

Not only for the embryo who probably feels as much pain as a fish but also for the mother who knows she won't love the child and won't be able to raise it properly. Not only for the traditional medicine user who looks forward to a wild night but also for the rhinoceros who gets killed because his horn looks like a strong penis.

Do I sound bitter? I'm sorry. These are just a few topics I'm quite concerned about. Just because, I'm sure, the mother who decides against abortion and the man who uses powdered rhinoceros horn, meant do do well. They are not evil. They just lack the knowledge and the alternative opinions. It makes me feel so powerless.
 

Fluffywolf

Nips away your dignity
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,581
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Knowing that you can't be truly good but still making the best effort you can to try and be truly good, based on all information you gather. That is being close enough to truly good.

Conceited hipocrits are the source of all evil. :devil:
 

Unkindloving

Lungs & Lips Locked
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
2,963
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
4w5
My stereotypical view of a good person is one who is selfless. A person who genuinely cares about a great many things and puts forth the effort to help at any point they can. Someone who has deep-rooted moral standards and so on.
I don't believe in this though. It's just what I would call good at a glance and in comparison to myself.

My real view of a truly good person is one with balance. Someone who can balance being selfish or selfless when necessary. A person who holds a strong sense of who they are, but still gives what they can if they see fit. A good person will be honest and stand their ground, but make it so others aren't mowed down in the process.
Do I feel that I fit either of these definitions? Not really. The first- certainly not. The second- close, but no cigar. I do feel that anyone who finds their balance is a truly good person, but they are very few and far between.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I have to say that this topic is one of those which has driven me to much in the way of investigation, consideration, musing, reading, discussion. Once I reach a final conclusion or understanding I'll probably be happier, I dont think I'll be able to do that for some time if ever though.

Some keynotes in my consideration of it have been Rudyard Kipling's poem "If", some passages in Mathew in which Jesus describes the final judgement and makes for his criteria not simply refraining from doing evil but failing to do good by meeting the, mainly material, needs of others.

More recently I've given serious considerations to the sorts of risks and sacrifices people make and why.
 

alcea rosea

New member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
3,658
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
For me, goodness is not hurting anybody physically or mentally but rather treating people well with respect in a positive way.
 

Saslou

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
4,910
MBTI Type
ESFJ
I believe being good to mean awareness/consciousness of your own actions via deliberation, consideration and such.

However what i may perceive as good may not mean the same for the next individual. Ultimately it is going to be subjective to the individual.

I perceive the great spiritual/philosophical leaders of the present world to be good but i am not prevy to what goes on behind closed doors so possibly the illusion could be that of good to the audience looking in however on the inside a different picture can be portrayed.
 

Journey

New member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
261
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6
Forgive me if I overlooked this answer in the posts above. If so, I reiterate, good has to be established against a standard. I know this is not a popular view in this post-modern world of relativism.

You can measure yourself against humanity's norm or God's Law. To be ultimately good you would have to be God Himself as Jesus Christ was. Jesus was ultimately killed on a cross for being good. That doesn't bode well for people who are being formed in His image. No man is truly good by God's standard except His Son, Jesus.

Good has been watered down in every way by the observations made above. Their definitions and standards are different.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Our Goodness

Being good means recognising that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So to be truly good means limiting power.

And we limit power through liberal democracy and scientific inquiry.

God has absolute power and has been opposed to liberal democracy and scientific inquiry for centuries. However last century both christianity and hinduism became reconciled to liberal democracy and scientific inquiry. However Islam, Confucianism, Animism and the New Age are not reconciled with liberal democracy and scientific inquiry.

Why is this?

Well, both liberal democracy and scientific inquiry are counter-intuitive, while Islam, Confucianism, Animism and the New Age are intuitive.

So we can see that to be truly good means being counter-intuitive.

And unfortunately MBTI is entirely intuitive. And not one counter-intuitive, random, double blind scientific experiment has been done on MBTI in seventy years.

So to be truly good on Typology Central we need to swim against the tide. And if we don't drown, this builds our strength, our endurance and our goodness.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
vomit-smiley-31.gif
 

Not_Me

New member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
1,641
MBTI Type
INTj
The answer is quite simple. Any act that makes an observer's life more pleasant will be judged to be goodl. There are no absolutes, only shared opinions. The only requirement is that the criteria is applied as universally as possible without bias.

[edited to answer the question of this thread]
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
One day, I'd personally love to see this concept of good and evil torn down and acceptance of humanity become the societal standard.

IMO, there doesn't appear to be any truly altruistic individuals historically or currently that weren't human, in that some of their "good" actions didn't have "bad" consequences or that every action taken was without self-interest. Omniscience isn't the property of being human.

I personally embrace the "do as little harm as possible" form of ethics and strongly reject the coerciveness and falsehoods of "being a do-gooder" or the "greater good" hypothesis.

While I admire and respect what Ghandi accomplished, his actions could have been perceived as disenfranchising the Hindus. MLK same thing, where he helped to erode on the power base of "white men", disenfranchising them to some degree. He was also purported to have had a couple of affairs, as well as having a taste for underage prostitutes. IMO, the concept of Jesus that's common knowledge did not exist so he can't really be used as an example of "goodness".

To swing the other direction, objectively Hitler almost single-handedly stabilised the German economy (a near bankrupt nation) and found a common cause to bring the German people together by creating a bogeyman aka Jews. While it's disturbing to me to write this about Hitler, IMO it's necessary within a thread of this nature about black and white, good and evil. As a visible minority, Hitler's views and actions are revolting and nauseating to me, from the position of emotional reaction and righteousness (which within itself, deserves to be challenged).

This discussion also begs the question of truth and perception of truth but I won't divert this thread any further.
 

Journey

New member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
261
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6
Metaphor;1378393 said:
IMO, the concept of Jesus that's common knowledge did not exist so he can't really be used as an example of "goodness".

Prefacing a statement with IMO does not nullify the arrogance of the statement that is truly offensive. There is plenty of evidence of a historical Jesus who is still living today. He is the only "good" man since He alone was God.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I think people in everyday life define what it is to be 'a truly good person' as something out of their reach. Their idea of it is someone saintly and 'perfectly' good in every way and therefore unattainable for an ordinary flawed human being. This seems to often be used as an excuse to make the minimal effort to behave ethically and justly; in other words a "why bother?" attitude. I personally don't set the standards that high.

I think being good is not so much of a state but exists in a constant process of striving for the unattainable ideal; for someone to frequently question themselves and morally challenge their own actions and decisions. A good person is not someone that never does wrong (because this is merely a false perception of themself) but someone that chides themself for doing wrong and seeks to change their actions accordingly. A good person should also be circumspect about defining themselves as one because they should strongly feel their past deficiencies and failures to do the right thing (not that I think constantly wallowing in guilt is important to this). I think people rarely take responsibility for the things that they have done wrong because the right thing is almost always much more difficult to do. So I would also say, a good person recognizes this difficulty, yet in spite of it, truly and regularly attempts to take on the burdens of doing what is right.

It does get complicated when cultural and religious elements come into play and some moral questions become subjective. I think the essential element of what might be considered right, is being ultimately concerned about the suffering of others (emotional and physical and on this earth, not in the afterlife) is at the heart of it above everthing else. This is not to be confused with ostensible concern for suffering, when in fact it is really an attempt to gain power or noteriety, or to attack or control others etc.

This is all very vague, I guess, but these things are... :shrug:
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
It wasnt Hitler that saved the German economy it was Keynesianism and he hardly created the anti-semitic folk devils he created, in fact anti-semiticism has eclipsed much of what else was in the ideology of the Nazis which proved popular with the German people, including nationalism, socialism, idealism and paranoia.

I dont really believe the great man theory of history, perhaps its a partial truth but I dont believe its a complete truth anyway.

So far as being human versus good and evil, I think that's a bit modest and also pessimistic, its like saying the best cant hope to be anything better than the worst, even if its just in their private moments or unintended consequences. Pretty depressing.
 

CzeCze

RETIRED
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
8,975
MBTI Type
GONE
There is a difference between being good and being guileless. Supposedly one of the pivotal moments (philo and otherwise) of Lao-Tzu's life was when one of his sons was imprisoned in another province. He was to set off to free his son but another son really beseeched his father to go instead. So Lao-Tzu sent his son off to free his other son. The directions were simple, he gave his son an amount of money to give to the magistrate in charge and request that his other son be freed. The son did that, but after the magistrate agreed to free the other son, the first son didn't understand why the magistrate should keep the money and asked for it back. This so angered the magistrate that not only did he reverse the decision to free the son, he ordered that he be put to death.

Upon hearing the news from his first son, Lao-Tzu supposedly laughed because that's life, etc. etc. etc. thus Taoism was born etc. etc .etc.

In regards to your question SB, I would say the first son might be seen as "good". He was being "righteous". He was so good and righteous he didn't even understand that the money Lao-Tzu gave was a bribe to the magistrate to his brother and ended up getting the brother killed.

I would say the son was stupid.

Being completely guileless, simple, "child-like" -- sure that is one way of being seen as good.

Is that the only or penultimate way to "good"? No.

And 'guiless' and 'simple' are euphemisms for 'stupid'.

And there's also a huge difference between DOING good and 'BEING' good.

I think being 'good' comes from a combination of intentions where you are trying to do right (be righteous, like the stupid son in Lao-Tzu's story), motivated by goals that are equally or more about the benefit of someone or group outside yourself, and having a true desire and discipline to be aware of the world around you and impact it in a positive way. Either because you genuinely derive pleasure from seeing the world better or helping people (haters will say this is motivated from 'ego' therefore, helpful people are actually selfish narcissists and cynical lazy bastards are the true pillars of society) or because even if it's a pain in the ass and you don't want to, you do something because you know it is the moral or ethical or compassionate thing to do.

Apathy and disinterest and pre-occupation do not necessarily seem 'evil' but they often contribute to evil and 'bad things' in the world because people neglect a basic duty to their fellow people. Caring and interest are part of being a 'good person'. I do not think it is possible to truly be a 'good person" and to be apathetic, disinterested, or "out of it". Being good is not a passive state.

Okay, done with partial rambling now...
 
Top