long winded fool

I suppose that is the underlying point. A person who is a good role model in general is trying to be the best person that he or she can be. Alonzo makes good points. "Good for everybody all things considered" would also be my definition of a good role model, (but "everybody all things considered" also sounds suspiciously like "the majority" to me.) Hitler did what he felt was "good for everybody all things considered." He just didn't include certain minorities in the term everybody, just like Alonzo is not including wealthy crime lords in the term everybody. (Not that he should, given the context.) It is actually bad for wealthy crime lords if they stop committing crimes. "Wealthy crime lord" will no longer exist as a label if he or she did this. While we think this is good and most people agree with us without even considering the matter, the wealthy crime lord does not. (Assuming they like being wealthy crime lords.) None of those terms will exist if they change "for the better." (For what we tell them is 'the better.')

I think it boils down to, "who should we call a good role model?" From here, Alonzo is absolutely right. But this necessarily falls into "considered a good role model" instead of actually just "being a good role model." They should be one and the same but they are not always. I still think that, though a person can be both in an ideal situation, they only have an obligation to be the latter. Someone can be a good role model and be considered a bad one by "everybody all things considered." (Socrates, Jesus, Martin Luther, Galileo...?) In which case, they are superficially doing what is currently "bad" for everybody, with the hope (or faith?) that in the long run, the people will change so that they benefit from this "bad" behavior which turns out to actually be good. (It's not "good" until everybody, all things considered, benefits from it.) Theoretically, someone who does what we think are "bad" things might be a pioneer and change everyone for the better. While I think we can all agree that it is unlikely that greed and crime will ever become "good," I also think that this collection of discussion forums deals with this very subject intimately. What once was "bad" can become "good" by being a good role model in your own eyes instead of just being considered a good role model by others. They can and should be the same, but even without the latter, the former is an obligation. Do what you feel is good for everybody, whether or not everybody agrees with you.

I think Vandrare is right. When we discuss the difference between being a good role model and being considered a good role model, we are really talking about how we all ought to live our lives. As Alonzo states, it is best if everyone agrees on "good for everybody." Since they don't, everyone has an obligation to find out what good is irrespective of what is "considered" good by everyone, all things considered. While Alonzo seems to think, and I agree, that "good" in itself is not actually subject to individual interpretation, (some people are objectively wrong about what they think is good) the fact is that no one is in total possession of absolute good and what we historically call good always turns out to be less than good in some areas, therefore it ought to be treated as a fluid thing in practical application. If you think you know better than everybody, then be a good role model in your own eyes, not theirs, and one day, perhaps, they will model themselves after you and you will be both a good role model and become considered a good role model.

Vandrare

you seem to be contradicting yourself a little here. you say you think "good" in itself is not subject to individual intepretation, then further down add that if you think you are being a good role model yourself (despite what others say) then you should continue like that and maybe in the future be proven correct. that seems like a pretty subjective intepretation to me.

and with this "good for everybody" - who is everybody? is this just the majority? i dont see how anyone can objectively say what is or isn't good or right for everyone at once, and good for the majority would do bad things for all the minority groups out there.

long winded fool

You're right. Though good is not ultimately subject to individual interpretation IMO, anyone not in possession of ultimate good must treat it as though it is. (In other words, no dogma.) While I might think what I'm doing is good, I might be wrong. This doesn't change what is good, it changes what I erroneously thought. "Good for everyone, all things considered" I use to represent "the majority." Where Alonzo was going, I think, was "When it's bad for a minority, either change it so that it's not, or change the minority." People like Socrates and Jesus chose to change others' beliefs rather than their own behavior. This indicates that they were being good role models, whether or not anyone agreed with them. This is an obligation, I think. Joe Blow might be working to be considered a good role model. This is not an obligation. That said, Hitler did the former for all intents and purposes. I agree that he should be considered a bad role model. I disagree that he wasn't being the best Nazi that he could be. (Or trying to be.) He was actually being a good role model for all murderous, racist, totalitarians out there, because that's what he believed in. We disagree with his beliefs, therefore he isn't considered a good role model. Both of these things I think are necessary. If Hitler's actions were ultimately good (or absolutely good) hopefully we would have modified our definition of good so that he would also have been considered a good role model. I personally think it is good that we didn't, and I think this is indicative that humans were correct in labeling him a bad role model. The bottom line though, is that he had an obligation to be a "good" role model under whatever definition of good he felt was true. The fact that he was not considered a good role model at the time he should have (and may have) taken into consideration, but ultimately should not have be a deciding factor in how he acted. This is why martyrdom is such an impressive and selfless virtue when it is for what becomes considered "right" and is such a tragic and frightening psychological error when it is for what continues to be considered "wrong."

While I won't go so far as to say that anyone has an obligation to be a martyr, we do have an obligation to examine what we judge as good and act in accordance, regardless of what others may tell us. We should take other opinions into consideration of course, but other opinions are not, and should never be, ours. This is the way we learn about good. This is how mistakes are eliminated down the road. Taking on other opinions as ours without a certain level of critical analysis is how we develop dogma and worship the mistakes of others. Mistakes aren't inherently bad. Failing to do what your neighbors think is good is not bad. Purposely failing to do what is understood by you to be good is bad.

Vandrare

i think i see now what your getting at LWF.... that there is an absolute or ultimate good, but because we cant figure that out we all have to strive for what we think is best at the time even if it goes against the grain as it might be proven to be right in the future?! and this is a moral obligation of everyone.. even the hermit in the woods?

if i'm right with that interpretation, then what is it that obligates us to do this?

long winded fool

That's a good question. I guess I see it mostly as being just the way we're wired. People always do what they think is best for themselves, regardless of whether it actually is or not. If it actually is, they are considered a good role model, if it is not, but they think it is, they are being a good role model in their own eyes, but are not considered a good role model by their neighbors. It is an instinct, I suppose. Humans are also social animals, therefore they will also do what they feel is best for their neighbors, so long as it coincides with what they feel is best for them. It is an inescapable obligation from an instinctual point of view. From a societal point of view I think it is still an obligation, though there is more freedom to reject it. If you want to live in a given society, you must do what you think will best ensure the survival of said society. If you do not, you are being irrational and probably dishonest with yourself about whether you actually want to live there. In other words, the only alternative to this obligation is mental instability.

So, from a societal point of view, the obligation comes from cause and effect. If I desire to live in a society, I should not do something I feel will destroy said society. And I won't, because I am obligated not to. This doesn't mean I won't, in reality, work to destroy the society, (or actually be CONSIDERED a bad role model,) it means I won't in my own mind work to destroy the society, (or actually BE a bad role model.)

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I agree with whoever first said it that there is a difference between being a good role model and being considered a good role model. I just think the former is an obligation. We have to do what we think is "right." We can say that we are doing what we know is wrong, but what we are really saying is: "I'm doing what I want to do for myself, but what everyone, including me, calls wrong." We always act in what we think is our own self-interest, regardless of what we call it. Even acts of generosity and self-sacrifice bring certain things to us that we feel we want or need. Every human is obligated by instinct to behave this way. Every human is obligated by sanity to not knowingly contradict their own desires*, and therefore to behave as logically as they can towards what they feel is the greatest good for them and to do as much good to their neighbors in the mean time as they can figure out how to do. Objective critical analysis as to whether they succeed or fail aside, when someone is doing all the above, they are fulfilling their obligation and being good role models.

*It should be noted that most, if not all, sane personalities are doing what they instinctually desire, even if they are presenting the illusion that they are "professional victims" or even just "down on their luck." Just to give a random example: Many women seek out penniless, abusive husbands because that is what they actually think they need. Perhaps not intellectually, but emotionally. And vice versa of course. These women are fulfilling their obligation and being the best victims that they can be, because that is how they subjectively see reality. They are not considered good role models for good reason, however they are still fulfilling their own obligation to do what they think is best for themselves, and as such are good role models for anyone else who shares their unfortunate lack of self-esteem and emotional security. This can be extrapolated out indefinitely to Hitler or to Socrates or anyone else and I think it still applies.

Being both a good role model and considered a good role model is ideal. Just being a good role model for anyone who thinks exactly like you do is pretty much hard wired into us as human beings. Those who don't are, for all intents and purposes, incomprehensible.