A Good Person

[Ishmael]

I am going to write a lesson to teach others. I am, of course, not religious but I am interested in what is means to be a "Good" person-- or in my case, "A Good Man." As a almost daily consumer of Confucius' Analects I have to note this verse from the first book, "Confucius said: "I am not bothered by the fact that I am unknown. I am bothered when I do not know others." (http://www.hm.tyg.jp/%7Eacmuller/contao/analects.html#div-1) This actually might be also translated, "...the good man does not grieve that other people do not recognize his merits. His only anxiety is lest he should fail to recognize thiers."

I think this is a good definition of a "good" person.

Without getting into a heady philosophical conversion about what good is, can you help me describe what a good person is, perhaps with secular or religious examples and/or saying, such as the one I have presented here?

Thank you,

Ishmael

[enoch007]

I cannot agree more with your quote. The key to goodness, I believe, is always found in neglect of self as important and the awareness/care for others combined with actions which may be seen as kindnesses for any and all one may meet.

[xunzian]

Confucius is all good by me!

If I wanted to be a good man, I'd follow Zeng Zi's suggestion:

"Each day I examine myself on three counts. In what I have undertaken on another's behalf, have I failed to do my best? In my dealings with my friends have I failed to be trustworthy in what I say? Have I passed on to others anyhting I have not tried out myself?"

But, hey, we're on the same thread, right? ;) It's all ren baby.

A person is made good by committing themselves to realizing the co-humanity that they share with everyone.

[SaguaroJen]

My current definition (a work in progress, of course):

A good person works to make himself and others happy and does not do so at the expense of anything or anyone else.

[TruthPrevails]

"Know thyself" first and continually, then goodness will follow.

[Garrett]

Ishmael
"...the good man does not grieve that other people do not recognize his merits. His only anxiety is lest he should fail to recognize thiers."
Well, that's friendly and useful, but I don't see why the recognition of the merits of others should be, a priori, more important than the recognition of our own. If the failure of others to recognize our own merits is no cause for grieving, then our failure to recognize the merits of others should also be no cause for grieving. Why the double standard? It isn't false humility, I think, but it seems to me to be misplaced humility.

[Ishmael]

Well, that's friendly and useful, but I don't see why the recognition of the merits of others should be, a priori, more important than the recognition of our own. If the failure of others to recognize our own merits is no cause for grieving, then our failure to recognize the merits of others should also be no cause for grieving. Why the double standard? It isn't false humility, I think, but it seems to me to be misplaced humility.

This is a good question... I doubt I could come up with a good philosophical reason to defend the notion that "recognizing other's merits is better than recognizing your own." The idea is does run both ways and I suppose a person is no better on either side of the issue.

So why do you think that Confucius said, "A good man..." behaves this way?

[xunzian]

The central idea of the Confucian ethic is ren. There are a variety of ways to translate it, but I'll follow the suggestion made by the characters and go with co-humanity (the characters are 'man' and the number two. Literally two-peopleness).

Tu Weiming clarifies it somewhat here:
Social, relational self: we are nothing apart from our social relations, and our interdependency extends into the immediate world and beyond.

This is contrasted with the self as a social atom and the idea of autonomy (Gk. autos + nomos), lit. self-legislating beings. This idea of self is the result of modern Western philosophy.

So, since we are our social relations (the self isn't an atomic point, but rather a node on a spiderweb), then it becomes important to see and realize what others have. That doesn't entail a rejection of what one's self has, or your own potential (note, Confucius said that it doesn't matter if others don't recognize your ability), but about recognizing both the potential of yourself and others and how they work together to accomplish things.

The question I always ask is whether anyone can name one individual who changed history, alone. Or even accomplished much of note. Such a person doesn't exist because everyone is dependent on everyone else, both in terms of their knowledge and their means of meaningful action.

So, a gentleman should be able to recognize the talents of others and put them to effective use even if others are unable to do the same with him. That is fine, indeed, it even takes on a certain degree of wuwei where the gentleman is able to accomplish a great deal while doing nothing himself because he has put others to use in a proper way. That is the transformative aspect of ritual (li) -- people being used in their proper way.

That is the first 'window' that co-humanity has. The second window is righteousness (i) which is generally reflected back onto the organizer by the organized. Righteousness ensures that the way people are used is consistent with their dignity and doesn't violate our co-humanity. This prevents the gentleman from becoming an exploiter.

[Ishmael]

The central idea of the Confucian ethic is ren. There are a variety of ways to translate it, but I'll follow the suggestion made by the characters and go with co-humanity (the characters are 'man' and the number two. Literally two-peopleness).

Tu Weiming clarifies it somewhat here:


So, since we are our social relations (the self isn't an atomic point, but rather a node on a spiderweb), then it becomes important to see and realize what others have. That doesn't entail a rejection of what one's self has, or your own potential (note, Confucius said that it doesn't matter if others don't recognize your ability), but about recognizing both the potential of yourself and others and how they work together to accomplish things.

The question I always ask is whether anyone can name one individual who changed history, alone. Or even accomplished much of note. Such a person doesn't exist because everyone is dependent on everyone else, both in terms of their knowledge and their means of meaningful action.

So, a gentleman should be able to recognize the talents of others and put them to effective use even if others are unable to do the same with him. That is fine, indeed, it even takes on a certain degree of wuwei where the gentleman is able to accomplish a great deal while doing nothing himself because he has put others to use in a proper way. That is the transformative aspect of ritual (li) -- people being used in their proper way.

That is the first 'window' that co-humanity has. The second window is righteousness (i) which is generally reflected back onto the organizer by the organized. Righteousness ensures that the way people are used is consistent with their dignity and doesn't violate our co-humanity. This prevents the gentleman from becoming an exploiter.

Wow! I can see now that I am barely scraping the surface of Confucian thought so far, thanks.

[Garrett]

Ishmael
So why do you think that Confucius said, "A good man..." behaves this way?
Well, even the greatest people make mistakes. But I don't think that's the case here (I indicated my general agreement with his point).

But how to answer my counter-point?

I doubt I could come up with a good philosophical reason to defend the notion that "recognizing other's merits is better than recognizing your own."
I'm assuming that "recognizing" the merits of others involves, in some way, letting them know about that recognition. "Stroking" them, iow, which positively reinforces their tendancy to behave in that favorable fashion.

If so, then by following Confucius' point, many are stroked. The overall good, the quality of life for us in general, is increased.

[kennethamy]

I am going to write a lesson to teach others. I am, of course, not religious but I am interested in what is means to be a "Good" person-- or in my case, "A Good Man." As a almost daily consumer of Confucius' Analects I have to note this verse from the first book, "Confucius said: "I am not bothered by the fact that I am unknown. I am bothered when I do not know others." (http://www.hm.tyg.jp/%7Eacmuller/contao/analects.html#div-1) This actually might be also translated, "...the good man does not grieve that other people do not recognize his merits. His only anxiety is lest he should fail to recognize thiers."

I think this is a good definition of a "good" person.

Without getting into a heady philosophical conversion about what good is, can you help me describe what a good person is, perhaps with secular or religious examples and/or saying, such as the one I have presented here?

Thank you,

Ishmael

What Confucius says about a good person may very well be true, but surely that cannot be a definition of a good person, although it may very well be a characteristic of one. Giving one or two characteristics or something doesn't constitute a definition of one.

Aristotle held something like this:

If you consider why we call things other that persons good, for example, why we call a particular knife a good knife, we can see that it is because the object, in this case, a knife, performs the function that knives are supposed to perform well. So, if the function of a knife is to cut, a good knife is a knife that cuts well. If we apply the schema "X is a good member of its kind if X performs the function that members of its kind are supposed to perform well" then to say that X is a good person would be to say that X performs the function that persons are supposed to perform, well. If we pursue that line of thought, we would have to ask, what is the function of people, so that we can ask of a particular person, whether he performs that function well. In the case of instruments like knives, it is fairly simply to answer that question, but it is clearly more difficult in the case of persons. Aristotle thought that the central function of a person, is thought and reasoning. And, he thought that a good person is a person who thinks and who reasons well, with all that entails. Aristotle thought that moral behavior was an outcome of reasoning, and that a person who reasons well would be a person who behaves well too.

Something to think about.

[cognac]

Aristotle thought that the central function of a person, is thought and reasoning. And, he thought that a good person is a person who thinks and who reasons well, with all that entails. Aristotle thought that moral behavior was an outcome of reasoning, and that a person who reasons well would be a person who behaves well too.

Does he mean that a we can describe moral behavior by watching how a reasoning person behaves, or rather that a reasoning person conforms to what we commonly consider moral behavior?

[kennethamy]

Does he mean that a we can describe moral behavior by watching how a reasoning person behaves, or rather that a reasoning person conforms to what we commonly consider moral behavior?

Aristotle believed that there was an intimate relation between reasoning well, and acting well. He believed that people who acted badly failed to understand what was good for them, and that ultimately, that was caused by a failure of the intellect. That is, of course, a very Greek way of thinking, and quite different from the Kantian view that moral failure is a failure of the will, not the intellect.

[apeman]

i think this question has already been nailed by kant (i think it was him anyway:D )

a good person is someone that has a sense of duty to to humanity, a sense of duty that may even overwhelm his own impulses.it means he doesn't try to "dissolve" himself in selflessness, rather he has internal conflict where the social good (duty) is given priority over self interest.it's much more heroic than the buddhist type stuff imo.:cool:

[kennethamy]

i think this question has already been nailed by kant (i think it was him anyway:D )

a good person is someone that has a sense of duty to to humanity, a sense of duty that may even overwhelm his own impulses.it means he doesn't try to "dissolve" himself in selflessness, rather he has internal conflict where the social good (duty) is given priority over self interest.it's much more heroic than the buddhist type stuff imo.:cool:

In a famous essay, Kant argued that since a person has a duty never to lie, if a potential murderer asks him where the potential victim is hiding, the person must tell him the truth.

Would you agree that person was a good person?

[apeman]

In a famous essay, Kant argued that since a person has a duty never to lie, if a potential murderer asks him where the potential victim is hiding, the person must tell him the truth.

Would you agree that person was a good person?


like gk chesterton said, cleverness kills wisdom.;)

a good person attempts to serve the interests of society, not murderers.

[kennethamy]

like gk chesterton said, cleverness kills wisdom.;)

a good person attempts to serve the interests of society, not murderers.

But the person did his duty, didn't he? And didn't you say that when Kant said that a good person does his duty, he had the question, "nailed down"? Have you changed your mind, in view of the example of a person who did his duty by telling the murderer where his victim was hiding?

[apeman]

But the person did his duty, didn't he? And didn't you say that when Kant said that a good person does his duty, he had the question, "nailed down"? Have you changed your mind, in view of the example of a person who did his duty by telling the murderer where his victim was hiding?

i was alluding to the kantian idea of duty to others rather than the kantian idea of duty involving not lying."duty" is the key word not "lying".

[kennethamy]

i was alluding to the kantian idea of duty to others rather than the kantian idea of duty involving not lying."duty" is the key word not "lying".

Sure. Kant believed that our duty not to lie to others was a duty to others.

[apeman]

Sure. Kant believed that our duty not to lie to others was a duty to others.


the duty not to lie is obviously out weighed by the duty not to assist murder.

[Ishmael]

I think it would be hopelessly irrational to suggest that being a good person equals never lying under any circumstances.

Good stuff concerning Aristotle, I remember reading something about reason and moral action now-- I will have to go back and study this again.

[kennethamy]

I think it would be hopelessly irrational to suggest that being a good person equals never lying under any circumstances.

Good stuff concerning Aristotle, I remember reading something about reason and moral action now-- I will have to go back and study this again.

That might be so. But apparently, that is what Kant held. Always tell the truth is a categorical imperative. But see his essay, "On the Supposed Right to Lie for Altruistic Motives" where he lays out the argument. I believe you can google it.

[Ishmael]

That might be so. But apparently, that is what Kant held. Always tell the truth is a categorical imperative. But see his essay, "On the Supposed Right to Lie for Altruistic Motives" where he lays out the argument. I believe you can google it.

I'll do it now. My reading is now pilling up :)

[Ishmael]

To be truthful (honest) in all declarations, therefore, is a sacred and absolutely commanding decree of reason, limited by no expediency. ~Kant

My question is did Kant believe that the man who told the truth and became liable as an accessory to murder has acted as a good person?

Does "good" equal moral action?

[kennethamy]

To be truthful (honest) in all declarations, therefore, is a sacred and absolutely commanding decree of reason, limited by no expediency. ~Kant

My question is did Kant believe that the man who told the truth and became liable as an accessory to murder has acted as a good person?

Does "good" equal moral action?

One way of characterizing the difference between Kant and his opposing, Consequentialists, is to say that for Kant, the primary moral criterion was rightness, whereas for the consequentialists it was goodness. For Kant, it was far more important to do what was right, then to be good.

[Ishmael]

One way of characterizing the difference between Kant and his opposing, Consequentialists, is to say that for Kant, the primary moral criterion was rightness, whereas for the consequentialists it was goodness. For Kant, it was far more important to do what was right, then to be good.

Lawful Evil > Chaotic Good?

[kennethamy]

Lawful Evil > Chaotic Good?

No idea.

[xunzian]

Here is an interesting article (http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/srp/arts/HCWK.html) on Kant. In light of that article, Li Zehou and his synthesis of Marxism and Kantianism becomes very interesting. At least I think (and it is relevant to the ideas expressed in the OP).

As for Aristolte, I have some (but not too many) problems with his definition. First, I think that to equate reason with goodness is a fallacy. After all, Capitalists during the early Industrial Revolution found it more reasonable to use women and children as workers -- indeed, the children are especially reasonable given Aristotle's other criterion, since there were able to fit in spaces adults couldn't: they were more useful. Another good example is Marxism, which remains very popular in academic settings because it represents the culmination of the Enlightenment and the entire ethic is solidly founded on reason. Yet this system has had a . . . . less than glorious past. So then it boils down to whose reason, which rationality and which rational. This isn't telling us anything new.

The second shoe in Aristotle's definition, that of utility, likewise has a checkered past. So very, very many atrocities have been commited in the name of utilitarianism -- after all, if the ends justify the means then any and all means are available. When someone asked Confucius about how to properly take care of their parents (quite possibly the cardinal virtue in Confucian ethics), Confucius commented that we feed and take care of our pets just as we take care of our parents (after all, when necessary we feed them, bathe them if necessary [obviously this deals with infirmed parents], do maintainence on thier house [be it unplugging their toilet for them or building a doggie house in the backyard, ect.) -- so it isn't enough to merely feed them, it isn't enough to merely take care of them, but we have to do so with respect. "The difficulty lies in controlling one's face." So, to the utilitarians, I have to ask -- do we feed our parents just as we feed our dogs?

Instead I think it is far better to acknowledge that being a good person is a multifacited endevour and while we can come up with situations and guidelines, steadfast rules are binding and inhibatory rather than useful.