What makes a good person Pt. 1

What makes a good person? Now we want to get some AO2 marks perhaps we should define what good actually is. It would be wrong to say that there is a fixed definition for good but it would also be false to say that the concept of good is relative or a matter of opinion. What I'm trying to say is that no matter how you spin things you can never fully claim or prove that good to one person is evil to another, that's because we associate the concepts of good and bad with that of right and wrong. I'm going to try to keep within the parameters of logic and hypothetical situation, also not taking into account the insane and anti-social behaviour etc. also I'll try to keep balance by taking three different angles from the worlds of moral philosophy, political philosophy and science.

"The greatest good for the greatest number of people" anything action that would lead to this would be the right action, at least according to utilitarians. Although this does seem to provide a basis for how to be good, it carries the same flaws as simple majoritarianism and therefore democracy as well. Majority opinions have often led to outrageous decisions, both majority vote or just majority consent or acceptance. Slavery, racism, sexism have all arisen from majorities or the strong benefitting from the system. we still see this today, majorities in the commons have led to an abuse of expenses and led to war in the last 10 years, minorities in the world have actually benefitted from capitalism by exploiting the majority, but only because they have majority consent. Forced compliance to the majority can lead to good on the other hand. Education would be opposed by the majority of kids while they're still in school, at least up to a certain age, but we can all agree that forced education is good. This brings me to the 'general will'.

Rousseau and other political philosophers have discussed the 'general will', anything that would benefit society as a whole. Although this can be the same as majoritarianism, it can also go against the idea of almost everyone. One problem with politicians acting in a good and right way is in deciding what the general will. Nietzsche felt that a 'superman' would come along and decide the general will, good advice dude. This led to Hitler, Stalin and Totalitarianism. The nation is split between on how the place should be run, half on the right and half on the left (not really, but it would be simpler if it was). it could be that both sides are wrong. If it were possible what was good for society, would it also be right(good) to force compliance? if there ever arose a situation (I've adapted this from torchwood) where you had to sacrifice the lives of 1,000 children or the earth would be destroyed, many would choose to let earth be destroyed rather than live a life where they couldn't look at themselves in the mirror, even if it would suit society if it gave up the kids. It might be easier to find out what good is if we took the complexities of civilization out of the picture.

Let me take you back to the big bang. The universe probably started with a huge expansion with incredibly simple particles like quarks. These particles joined to become more comples, electrons then protons then atoms then molecules. Certain people, including physicists, believe that the universe follows a path, almost a destiny, in which things keep getting more and more complex. The theory is called the tendency towards complexity. The universe started infinitely simple and became more and more complex, and known to us humans at the moment are most naturally occurring complex beings in existence. The universe will continue to become more and more complex until it reaches an ultimate complexity, many believe this lead to the tendency toward simplicity, in other words total destruction or the big crunch, others believe the ultimate complexity is god. Anything that can be seen to aid the process towards ultimate complexity may be seen as good, and anything to hinder the process can be seen as bad. Killing is bad, because if everyone did it, it would lower the population and the gene pool would decrease stopping evolutionary diversity. Love, tolerance and freedom are good as they keep the world even and fair keeping the gene pool up and increasing the evolutionary diversity. Once again there are flaws, as this doesn't take into account people, the environment or the economy but it does take into account the big picture.

There may not be such a thing as good but only the human condition. Ofcourse none of these ideas are my own so feel free to look these up for yourself. Any way, getting back to the question at hand, what makes a good person?

To be continued.