Anthemic

I know everyone has discussed this many times, but since it is something I have been mulling over lately, I will ask it. What is a good person? Is there any such thing?

David Gould

anyone(including me): "A good person is someone who does their best to follow my particular code of morality."

This does not really answer your question, though.

I think you are looking for some standard of good which all agree on. I don't think that is possible.

My particular morality is difficult for me to express, although it is probably fairly common.

I believe that all humans start as equal.
I believe that all humans should have certain rights enshrined, rights which they cannot forfeit. (for example, their right to choose whether to be alive or dead)

I can usually only answer specific questions on morality - I do not know what my general construct is, other than 'be nice'. As to what being nice entails...

echidna

Good to you would be to be true to your values.

Good to me would be true to my values.

Coincidentally I suspect that we’d agree on most things.

Whether we can hold to our values, now there’s something quite different.

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>

Ms. Siv

A good person is one who tries his best not to sin. And my definition of sin comes from Robert Heinlein's definition.

- Sivakami.

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Sivakami S ]</p>

ManM

A good person is one who is considerate of others over himself.

dangin

A good person is one who is educated enough to know that he/she has only his/her self interest at heart. Because the knowledgeable person, who is looking out for number one, will not steal, will not kill, will not assault, will not home invade, will have a job, will treat others well, and will be invested in his/her home, community, and family. Thus is the easiest/best path in life for the self interested person.

Bill Snedden

I wouldn't go quite that far. IMO, being good doesn't require self-sacrifice.

I would say rather that a good person is one who is considerate of others in the same manner as he considers himself. In other words, treat other people as you yourself would want to be treated. (now, where did I read that? )

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Eudaimonist

A good person remembers to put the enlightened into enlightened self-interest. With ethical wisdom we learn that working towards one's own happiness is good, but it involves respecting, and to some extent aiding, the efforts of others to achieve happiness.

ManM

Bill, I'd agree and say win/win situations do exist where being good does not require any sacrifice. Yet, those really aren't the cases where we have moral questions. I think that my stronger formulation does cover the more interesting questions, and hence is a better way to look at things.

Bill Snedden

Let's make sure we understand the terms.

"Sacrifice", to me, means to exchange a higher value for a lower one.

Simply put, trading a five-dollar bill for a one-dollar bill is a sacrifice. Trading a five-dollar bill for something that, to me, is worth five-dollars is not a sacrifice.

Using this definition, I can't think of a single situation in which moral value is placed upon self-sacrifice. Extreme examples usually used would be saving the life of a loved one at the expense of one's own life. However, to my understanding, this is not sacrifice; I place the value of my loved ones lives very high indeed. It would significantly reduce the value of my own life were they to die in a situation that were to be within my power to prevent, even at the risk of my own life. As my own life would be next to worthless in that event, I am obligated by self-interest alone to act in order to preserve their lives, even at the cost of my own.

My "obligations" toward others come not from any duty owed to them, but to my obligation to myself; to live by and uphold my values. To recognize that treating others ethically is, in fact, in my own self-interest.

To suggest that one must be considerate to others before oneself is to suggest that we are in some way obligated to others over ourselves, which seems to me little more than slavery. To use a similar example, it suggests that we should always choose to sacrifice our lives for the lives of others, regardless of relationship or any other considerations. Is it really "good" to sacrifice one's life for a complete stranger, without regard to the suffering of the loved ones you leave behind whose lives you ostensibly value more than that stranger's?

Is this really what you espouse? I'd like to think that we're saying pretty much the same thing, just with differing definitions of "sacrifice".

Regards,

Bill Snedden