How many of us tell ourselves that we are good people? How many more of us struggle on a daily basis to convince ourselves of the same thing? Some might say, "Not enough of us," but I hold a different perspective. I believe us all to be bullshitting ourselves.
The concept of a good person has always been a difficult one to grasp for me. I did once believe such a thing existed, but not as a title that held any level of permanency. Anyone can be a good person one moment, and yet in another — perhaps even one that very same day — they could be the very worst of people.
It would appear that — by the predominantly shared understanding of what a good person is — to qualify for this most esteemed title, one must have more good in them than bad, or have done more of the former than the latter in their current lifetime. But if this is the case, how could we mere humans ever convince ourselves that we possess the necessary instruments to measure such a thing?
For one, we would need an infallible memory. Without the ability to recall every decision of our lives, we would be unable to accurately calculate our "goodness." Secondly, we would need a point-system that attributed a number, or something to the same effect, to every possible action and non-action one could contemplate.
You save a baby from a burning building. +20 points. You stole from the cookie jar. - 3 points. What about; you sat down for two hours and cried when your grandfather died? + 5 points because you have compassion in your heart, or - 10 points because a truly good person would have been using that time to help others, or think of how best to do so?
Then there is the deeper aspect of it. For the measurement to be reliable, we would have to be honest enough with ourselves to know what drove us to do good in any given circumstance. Was it simply because you felt it was the right thing to do? I doubt it. Nothing is ever so simple. Was it so that you can see an improvement in the world around you to help you live more comfortably? Could it have been to help persuade yourself that you are a good person? Could it have been to try to convince others that you are a good person? Maybe it is simply fear of burning in an eternal pit of fire? They are all self-serving decisions, so should they really be categorized as good? Would they be worthy of reward or reduction in regards to points on the scoreboard of morality?
None of us can honestly say we are a good person, because none of us possess the aforementioned resources to complete the equation that would be necessary to determine so. So perhaps we shouldn't hold onto this concept any longer. It has become a weight that we no longer need burden ourselves with, and somewhat paradoxically, it limits our potential to do good by having us waste our time thinking about whether we are good people, rather than spending that time helping others.
So why not scrap this wasteful ideology and admit to ourselves that on a fundamental level, we are not good or bad people, but simply people? It all comes down to choice. The choices we make, and perhaps even moreso, the choices that we allow ourselves to see as available to us. It then would become apparent that a good person is simply a person who has made the conscious choice to try and be a force for good in this world. A choice that is available to anyone— at any time— for any reason.
We all have the potential to be a person who does good. Just as we all have the capacity to be one who does the opposite. Measuring your deeds might be a good source of inspiration to be the right type of person, in any given moment. But, if you truly want to be the best person you can be, then don't waste time questioning yourself. Just be that person.
In my mind, there is no good or bad. this are only perceptions. everything is a projection of our own prejudice and what we think or feel in the moment. If a poor mother steal food to feed her child, is she good or bad? It depend if your the store owner or the baby.
In the book 'the stranger' by albert camus, Meursault is having a trial for murder, and one of the main things that influence the story is that he did not cry in his mother's funeral.
In January 1955, Camus wrote:
I summarized The Stranger a long time ago, with a remark I admit was highly paradoxical: 'In our society any man who does not weep at his mother's funeral runs the risk of being sentenced to death.' I only meant that the hero of my book is condemned because he does not play the game.
When a person do a "good thing" it's only to make himself feel good. there is not one non-egoistic act in this world.
I totally agree. I was actually planning to write a post questioning whether every action, no matter how seemingly altruistic in nature, is self-serving by default. I have not read the book you mention, but it sounds intriguing. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Amazing deadly sentence my dear @vanessaondine. Never better said and couldn't agree more with this quote.
Hence, this final sentence on your comment, jointly with such a so coherently well written post by @thoughtfool, has made this reading imbatible.
¡Upvoted you both! :)
In order to discuss "good" behaviors or character, one must first define the term "good." And the inherent assumption within a definition of "good" would be that there is an objective, external reference from which man can judge behaviors, intentions, character. Then from whence comes such reference? Who or what laid the foundations of such external reality?
I think it was Dave.
Congratulations @thoughtfool! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP