Is "just be a good person" an acceptable philsophy to follow?

[wimp]

?

[°Leprechaun]

Yes. It is the most important thing.

[Mopsus]

Sure. Just let us know when you get everyone in agreement on what that means.

[Torie]

More or less, assuming one's idea of what is "good" follows generally accepted norms that most can agree upon.

[LBJer]

I voted no.  I think that there's a minimal level of decency that one has to have, but just being a "good person" doesn't make me particularly admire someone--life is about much more than that to me.  I'd prefer someone who lived a remarkable life while doing morally questionable things in some areas to one who was unambiguously "good" across the board but who's life was boring and uneventful.  

Also, there's such a thing as being too good of a person. 

[LBJer]

More or less, assuming one's idea of what is "good" follows generally accepted norms that most can agree upon.

But by that logic, would someone who married someone of a different race in the 1950s not be "good" (in 1958, only 4% of Americans polled approved of marriages between "white and colored people")?  And until recent decades, would that mean that a gay person was not a "good" person? 

[Xeuma]

No because its a meaningless, vacuous phrase.

[Ferguson97]

No because it's too vague.

What does it mean to be a good person? Doing good works? Self-improvement? Generosity? Are we looking at this from a utilitarian perspective or a set of ethical rules?

[dead0man]

yes, as long as you define "be a good person" as someone who is nice to everyone.

[DaleCooper]

yes, as long as you define "be a good person" as someone who is nice to everyone.

I think it depends more on how we define "nice" as well. Friendliness is something I value a lot less than reliability and decency. I've seen a lot of people cause significant hurt and disruption in the lives of others while generally adhering to the vague "be a good person" moral philosophy. That is, they do the bare minimum of choosing not to rob or assault people, but aside from that they're only in it for themselves.

On the whole, I voted no because I think the vague "be a good person" route is a cop out for actually being a positive influence in the world and the lives around you.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's a "philosophy" that has neither specificity as to what's being demanded nor any established criteria for success or failure, so no, it is not.

[pbrower2a]

Necessary but not adequate. It is highly unlikely that anyone out to do evil will do good by sheer accident. The only good that evil people do is typically their own self-destruction. Good intentions often have unintended consequences, which explains the temptation of inflation for solving budgetary problems.   

There will always be some argument on what constitutes "goodness". Is standing up for one's rights good -- or evil? Subordination to the rich and powerful exemplifies feudal attitudes that fit a time in which life was literally nasty, short, and brutish. Rewards were few, so punishments were horrific -- burnings at the stake, iron maidens, crushing...

[afleitch]

Yes.

As much as no one can define standards of what is 'good', on the whole we seem to be doing overwhelmingly 'good things' as a species even if as a series of happy accidents.

This isn't happening because we are 'not good' or trying to do bad things as a default.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Short answer: Yes

Standard answer: I mean, sure, but you need an actual moral system to be able to tell you what "being a good person" actually means so if you really want to be a good person you need to give serious reflection to what morality even *is* and what it can be grounded on.

Enlightened answer: While thinking deeply about moral principles is important, we can't lose sight of the fact that the most important ethical principles (be kind, treat others as you would like to be treated, don't harm others, respect others' autonomy, don't take so much for yourself and take care of those less fortunate, etc.) are pretty universal to any sound ethical system, and probably baked into our fundamental moral intuitions. Sure, sometimes you get into edge cases where different philosophies will tell you different things, but for the vast majority of us that will almost never be the case. The hard part is usually not figuring out what's the right thing to do, but actually doing it even when it's inconvenient or costly. So yes, actually, focus on being a good person first, and then any philosophical framework you can put on it is a nice ornament, but only if it's built on a solid foundation of everyday, basic goodheartedness.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Short answer: Yes

Standard answer: I mean, sure, but you need an actual moral system to be able to tell you what "being a good person" actually means so if you really want to be a good person you need to give serious reflection to what morality even *is* and what it can be grounded on.

Enlightened answer: While thinking deeply about moral principles is important, we can't lose sight of the fact that the most important ethical principles (be kind, treat others as you would like to be treated, don't harm others, respect others' autonomy, don't take so much for yourself and take care of those less fortunate, etc.) are pretty universal to any sound ethical system, and probably baked into our fundamental moral intuitions. Sure, sometimes you get into edge cases where different philosophies will tell you different things, but for the vast majority of us that will almost never be the case. The hard part is usually not figuring out what's the right thing to do, but actually doing it even when it's inconvenient or costly. So yes, actually, focus on being a good person first, and then any philosophical framework you can put on it is a nice ornament, but only if it's built on a solid foundation of everyday, basic goodheartedness.

I don't think it's at all true that the vast majority of moral decisions are obvious regardless of one's philosophical priors. Moral decisions regarding things like sexual intimacy, anything on the conception/abortion/childbearing/parenting continuum, use of mind-altering substances, giving money to panhandlers, etc. are ones that people make every day and ones the "correct" answer to which can vary enormously based on what one's concept of morality and source/sources of moral authority are. It's true enough that people of goodwill will have more or less commensurable attitudes about most everyday moral choices, but when it comes to their actual decisions, that just ain't so.

[afleitch]

It's important to remember choices made in life aren't exclusively binary; from when you wake up to when you go to bed you aren't making one 'right choice' over the opposite 'wrong choice' each time you are faced with an option.

In top down systems of morality, when intertwined with community/law, those with authority or power can weaponise simple binary choices by portraying them as exclusive opinions within a given system. More nuanced choices (like sexual morality) are often coded as more restrictive in choice and consequences than they actually are in practice.

Moral actions are often situational; minor factors or stressors that have no moral basis can influence moral behaviour. To touch upon panhandling, the famous 'Princeton seminarian experiment' showed that people 'in a hurry' (in this case on the way to a discussion about the Good Samaritan) were less likely to help others in need. Or themselves. We miss nuances and details when under stress, it's an evolutionary response and while a lapse in judgment, is not a failure in judgement.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In a very loose sense this is about all the philosophy that the various 'revealed' religions have ever historically instructed their members to follow. The issue is that the definition of 'good' is very variable at the margins. In a tighter sense it can actually be an actively harmful attitude as it can easily lead to a position of dangerous, solipsistic arrogance and thence to considerable cruelty towards others.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Short answer: Yes

Standard answer: I mean, sure, but you need an actual moral system to be able to tell you what "being a good person" actually means so if you really want to be a good person you need to give serious reflection to what morality even *is* and what it can be grounded on.

Enlightened answer: While thinking deeply about moral principles is important, we can't lose sight of the fact that the most important ethical principles (be kind, treat others as you would like to be treated, don't harm others, respect others' autonomy, don't take so much for yourself and take care of those less fortunate, etc.) are pretty universal to any sound ethical system, and probably baked into our fundamental moral intuitions. Sure, sometimes you get into edge cases where different philosophies will tell you different things, but for the vast majority of us that will almost never be the case. The hard part is usually not figuring out what's the right thing to do, but actually doing it even when it's inconvenient or costly. So yes, actually, focus on being a good person first, and then any philosophical framework you can put on it is a nice ornament, but only if it's built on a solid foundation of everyday, basic goodheartedness.

I don't think it's at all true that the vast majority of moral decisions are obvious regardless of one's philosophical priors. Moral decisions regarding things like sexual intimacy, anything on the conception/abortion/childbearing/parenting continuum, use of mind-altering substances, giving money to panhandlers, etc. are ones that people make every day and ones the "correct" answer to which can vary enormously based on what one's concept of morality and source/sources of moral authority are. It's true enough that people of goodwill will have more or less commensurable attitudes about most everyday moral choices, but when it comes to their actual decisions, that just ain't so.

The gap between attitudes and decisions is exactly where "being a good person" comes into play, though, right? Just knowing what's right doesn't mean it's easy to do when the time comes.

Giving money to panhandlers is a great example. To me, the answer is clear as day: you should give money, every time, and in much larger amounts than we normally do. There might be exceptions if you feel physically threatened or if you're in a genuine hurry for something you really can't afford being late to. But those are minor quibbles. I still think that this is an extremely clear-cut moral issue. The hard part isn't knowing what you should do, but actually doing it.

Of course most of us fail that test most of the time, myself included. I see homeless people in the streets almost every time I leave my house (that's Los Angeles for you), and most of the time I just walk by. I have reasons for that, of course (social anxiety, hurry, wanting to be careful with my money), but let's be real, none of those are good reasons. None of them outweigh the fact that there's a person in dire need that I'm refusing to help. I just don't think it's that complicated. I'm just being selfish, as all of us are most of the time.

What concerns me more than anything are the efforts to construct abstruse ethical systems that try to make simple issues like this seem complicated. There's a whole cottage industry of pseudointellectuals who work hard to provide excuses of all sorts of selfishness, all coated in the pretense of deep ethical reflections (Ayn Rand is probably the most infamous of those, but there are many more). That, to me, is the real danger here. I'd much rather people admit they're being selfish (and we be kind and understanding about each other's selfishness) rather than rationalize themselves out of feeling even the slightest hint of guilt.

The other examples you bring up are more controversial, yes, but with most of them I'd argue that's because they concern moral impositions that go above and beyond the baseline "be a good person" moral principles I'm talking about. Issues like contraception and drug use don't really involve fundamental benevolence or malevolence toward others, at least not directly. So yes, those issues can be elucidated on the basis of more complex ethical systems, but I maintain that whatever one decides to do with these issues, "being a good person" the way I've delineated it should take precedence over any such consideration, and is in a sense part of a more fundamental "core" of human moral thinking.

Abortion is the one issue you cited that is legitimately thorny, because it involves a fundamental disagreement over who is or isn't a subject of moral consideration. This is definitely a limit to the "just be good" approach, and it certainly deserves inquiry and deliberation. There are similar issues of this calibers, such as those involving animal rights. And of course, in the past, many people have withheld moral acknowledgment of people who weren't a member of the tribe, the nation, the faith, the race or whatnot. In these past cases, I think most of us can now agree that this withholding was a mistake, but of course some still defend it. Regardless, my point was never to say that thorny moral questions don't exist, but I maintain they account for a vanishingly small share of the choices we make every day.

[vitoNova]

Absolutely.  

The Golden Rules is the only valid philosophy to follow.  

All other religions cults are irrelevant.  

[Associate Justice PiT]

     No, because to actually be a good person is something that our efforts cannot achieve. Such a slogan is very dangerous, because it makes it seem like a simple matter that any person should be capable of, thereby serving as a stumbling block to true spiritual growth.

[Agonized-Statism]

Golden rule, sure. Most religions have an ethic of reciprocity anyway.

[LBJer]

Golden rule, sure. Most religions have an ethic of reciprocity anyway.

The Golden Rule doesn't always make sense in practice.  It doesn't work when one at least arguably has an independent justification for doing something unpleasant to someone even if they themselves wouldn't "like" it done to them.  For example, virtually no one would want to be fired from their job.  That doesn't mean it's always or almost always wrong to fire someone. 

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Golden rule, sure. Most religions have an ethic of reciprocity anyway.

The Golden Rule doesn't always make sense in practice.  It doesn't work when one at least arguably has an independent justification for doing something unpleasant to someone even if they themselves wouldn't "like" it done to them.  For example, virtually no one would want to be fired from their job.  That doesn't mean it's always or almost always wrong to fire someone. 

This is Kant's criticism of the Golden Rule, but this and the example he gives (a criminal asking a judge not to imprison him on the ground that the judge would not want to be imprisoned himself) seems to not quite work. The employer could well reply that if he deserved to be fired then he would accept it, even granting that no-one likes losing their job.

[LBJer]

Golden rule, sure. Most religions have an ethic of reciprocity anyway.

The Golden Rule doesn't always make sense in practice.  It doesn't work when one at least arguably has an independent justification for doing something unpleasant to someone even if they themselves wouldn't "like" it done to them.  For example, virtually no one would want to be fired from their job.  That doesn't mean it's always or almost always wrong to fire someone.  

t
This is Kant's criticism of the Golden Rule, but this and the example he gives (a criminal asking a judge not to imprison him on the ground that the judge would not want to be imprisoned himself) seems to not quite work. The employer could well reply that if he deserved to be fired then he would accept it, even granting that no-one likes losing their job.

That seems like an acceptable modification of the rule: it's not necessarily wrong to do something that will or might negatively affect others--something that no one would "like" to have happen to them--but before doing it you should ask: "Do I think the person/people I'm going to do this to would be justified in doing the same to me if the shoe were on the other foot?"  

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Golden rule, sure. Most religions have an ethic of reciprocity anyway.

The Golden Rule doesn't always make sense in practice.  It doesn't work when one at least arguably has an independent justification for doing something unpleasant to someone even if they themselves wouldn't "like" it done to them.  For example, virtually no one would want to be fired from their job.  That doesn't mean it's always or almost always wrong to fire someone.  

t
This is Kant's criticism of the Golden Rule, but this and the example he gives (a criminal asking a judge not to imprison him on the ground that the judge would not want to be imprisoned himself) seems to not quite work. The employer could well reply that if he deserved to be fired then he would accept it, even granting that no-one likes losing their job.

That seems like an acceptable modification of the rule: it's not necessarily wrong to do something that will or might negatively affect others--something that no one would "like" to have happen to them--but before doing it you should ask: "Do I think the person/people I'm going to do this to would be justified in doing the same to me if the shoe were on the other foot?"  

Right. Kant's more effective point is that the Golden Rule gives no objective ground for duties to the self and others, so e.g. a suicidal person following the Golden Rule would turn into a homicidal maniac. The subjective element to the Golden Rule (based on a kind of amour-propre) led him to replace it with a moral maxim grounded instead in universal reason, the categorical imperative: always treat human beings as an end.