A Philosophical Quest for Goodness: What Defines a Good Person?
Tell us, Diane
I will probably never tire of quoting that little masterpiece that was Bojack Horseman.
If you don’t know what I’m talking about, it’s a popular TV series by Raphael Bob-Waksberg known for its deep exploration of moral and philosophical themes, something you should watch; trust me (I love it so much that I talked about it here, too).
Just a few days ago, I was thinking about another of the best moments of the TV series, when Bojack, maybe in one of the final episodes of the first season, asks Diane insistently to tell him if he was a good person (or, in his case, horse).
I-I-I need you to tell me that I’m a good person. I know that I can be selfish, narcissistic, and self-destructive, but underneath all that, deep down, I’m a good person, and I need you to tell me that I’m good.
Diane? Tell me, please, Diane. Tell me that I’m good.
Bojack felt the need for confirmation as if being a good person wasn’t so obvious.
For that matter, what makes a person good? Is it doing the right things? And what are the right things to do?
I’m not going to talk about the character per se, so I suggest you check out this piece where Deon talks about the different lessons the TV series gives us about various aspects of life.
I would rather dwell on the importance of the question that came to me out of nowhere.
What makes someone good has fascinated philosophers, ethicists, and thinkers for centuries. It is a topic that goes beyond cultural boundaries and challenges us as we wrestle with the complexities of human nature and morality.
This article will delve into various philosophical perspectives on the nature of goodness (because, yes, in all this, philosophy could only come to our help; who else?), going from deontology, and consequentialism to virtue ethics and exploring the basic principles that define a good person.
Defining Goodness: A Philosophical Challenge
Defining goodness is not as easy as we think. Different philosophical traditions offer various interpretations of what it means to be a good person. To understand these perspectives, we must first consider the two broad categories of morality’s most philosophical approaches: deontological and consequentialist ethics.
Deontological Ethics: The “Rule Follower”
Deontological ethics, often associated with philosophers like Immanuel Kant, highlights the innate moral quality of actions rather than their outcomes. According to this perspective, a good person follows a set of moral rules and principles, such as the categorical imperative, regardless of the consequences.
In other words, the intention behind an action and its alignment with universal moral laws are what define goodness.
For Kant, acting out of a sense of duty and treating others as ends in themselves rather than as means to an end are key components of moral goodness. A person who consistently adheres to these principles is considered virtuous. The key is to follow the rules, no matter what happens.
In other words, imagine you have a rule that says you should always tell the truth, even if it might get you into trouble. So, if your friend asks you if you stole their food, you tell them the truth, even if you know they might be mad. That’s because following the rule of always telling the truth is crucial, even if the result (your friend getting mad) isn’t nice.
It’s like being a “rule follower” and doing what’s right according to those rules, even if it’s hard sometimes.
Consequentialist Ethics: The “Happiness Maker”
Consequentialist ethics, on the other hand, considers the goodness of a person based on the outcomes of their actions. Utilitarianism, with thinkers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, is a renowned example of consequentialism. According to utilitarianism, a good person is one who maximises overall happiness and minimises suffering for the greatest number of people.
From a utilitarian perspective, the goodness of an action depends on its net utility, whether it results in greater happiness than unhappiness. Therefore, a person striving to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number would be considered morally praiseworthy.
To make everything easier to digest, imagine you have two choices: sharing your food with your friends or not sharing it. Consequentialist ethics is like thinking about what happens due to your choice.
So, if you share your food and everyone is happy and having a good time, that’s considered a good choice because it makes people happy, and happiness is like a positive feeling. But if you don’t share, and your friends are sad or upset, that’s not a good choice because, as a result, it makes people feel sad, and that’s not a nice feeling.
Consequentialist ethics says that a good person tries to make others happy and not sad with their choices. It’s like being a “happiness maker” and trying to do things that bring smiles and joy to others.
Balancing Deontology and Consequentialism
While deontological and consequentialist ethics offer distinct perspectives on goodness, many contemporary philosophers recognise the value of integrating both approaches. If both have something coherent, why not use them at the same time?
This balancing, often called “virtue ethics,” emphasises the development of virtuous character traits as the foundation of moral goodness.
Virtue Ethics: How about a Virtuous Character?
Virtue ethics, aka the works of Aristotle, promotes the idea that being a good person involves cultivating virtuous character traits over time.
Virtues such as courage, honesty, compassion, and wisdom are considered essential for moral excellence. Instead of focusing just on the morality of individual actions or their consequences, virtue ethics directs our attention towards developing these virtues within ourselves.
According to this perspective, a virtuous person consistently embodies these virtues in their actions and choices, striving to find a balance between deontological principles and consequentialist concerns. In this way, virtue ethics acknowledges that goodness is not just about what we do or the outcomes we achieve but also about who we become as individuals.
Cultural and Individual Variations
It’s important to note that cultural and individual variations can significantly influence what is considered good. What may be virtuous in one culture or context might not hold the same moral weight in another. Plus, individuals have their own unique moral compasses shaped by personal experiences, upbringing, and values.
And this makes the issue even more complex, which goes beyond the theorisations of human behaviour.
The philosophical quest to define what makes someone a good person reveals a rich tapestry of ideas and perspectives. Whether we focus on the moral quality of actions, the consequences of those actions, or the development of virtuous character traits, the concept of goodness remains a dynamic and evolving inquiry.
While different philosophical traditions offer diverse insights, goodness often lies in a harmonious blend of moral principles, virtuous character, and a commitment to ethical living.
However, critics of virtue ethics argue that it can be overly reliant on cultural norms and lacks a universal moral framework. They contend that what is considered virtuous can vary greatly across cultures, challenging the idea of a universal standard of goodness. Acknowledging these criticisms and engaging in a thoughtful dialogue about the limitations of virtue ethics in defining a good person is important.
Pursuing goodness is a lifelong journey that challenges us to continually reflect upon our actions, intentions, and impact on the world around us.
So, as you go about your own journey in life, consider the principles and insights we’ve explored here. Embrace the complexity of goodness and strive to be not just a person who does good, but a person who embodies goodness in all that you do.
