Over the weekend I got into another philosophical debate with my friend William, and here is the organized result of what I learned:Most people think of a bad person as someone who does bad things to people, and a good person is a person who does nice things to people. Well for this discussion, 'good person' is going to mean something a little different. See, to me, there are certain rights of individuals that people should never violate. These are the criteria I feel measure 'good' and 'bad'. The interpretation of these 'rights' can potentially vary from person to person based on their perspective of life. I feel like it should be constant across everyone, but realize any moral acting as a constant with everyone is wistful thinking. In any case, I feel these rights are limited to 'not stealing from someone', and 'not harming innocent people', whether it's physical harm or otherwise. If the intent is to harm an innocent person, you're violating that person's right. So during the course of my argument, when I say 'bad things', these things and only these things am I referring to.
Now, imagine if you will, a scale upon which your 'good' and 'bad' are measured, a scale which measures your moral integrity, aka scale#1. But like I said above, for this argument, 'good' doesn't mean doing good things to people, like a service project, but instead I'm going to use it in the context of 'someone who doesn't do bad things'. So on this scale that measures 'good' and 'bad', the bad people are people who violate the rights I listed above, a good person is simply someone who does not violate those rights of others and means nothing beyond that.
Now, imagine an entirely separate scale, one that measures a different kind of good and bad, what I'm going to call selfish and selfless, aka scale#2. Beyond the violation of rights, there's another part of life that can be measured, and that's how we act towards other people which is, again, completely separate from what rights we do or don't violate. On one side of this scale, we have a 'selfish' person, who really only cares about himself, he's out to fulfill his wants and needs and no one else's. He's rude, he's mean, he's selfish and greedy, and in fact he's just a complete jerk overall. On the other side of the scale is the paragon of benevolence, a selfless person who strives to find those in need and render aid where ever he can. He's kind, thoughtful, giving and honest, the kind of guy you like to be around.
Now to present one part of my argument: the person who violates the rights of innocent people and the person who gives and serves continually are not opposites of each other, they are being measured on separate scales, and for the sake of this argument, have nothing to do with each other.
Since we have two scales, we have 4 unique combinations now, and any number of 'blend' combinations, but lets just touch on the full-on combinations. Let's take the person who harms innocent people, let's say...a gangster (such as the one in the picture, Russell Crowe in the movie 3:10 to Yuma), who steals and kills and blackmails people, all kinds of violation of rights. Now on the other scale, he's on the 'good' side in that outside of his life of crime, he's very kind and gentle to people, he's giving and charismatic and thoughtful. You see this type of person all the time in movies, the likable charismatic villain, who, despite being a thief and murderer, seems like a good guy. Of course, you can have the 'mobster' who is on the 'jerk' side of the scale#2 making him a 'bad' person and also a 'selfish' person. Even worse.
The opposite of that person is, of course, the person who doesn't violate any rights and in addition to that is caring and kind and serving and so on. Great, good for him, you've got a stand up citizen there worthy of an award of some kind. However, you can also have the person who doesn't violate any rights but in all other ways is a complete ass. This person often gets a bad rap from society, wrongfully judged by many as 'worse' than the mobster who appears to be a saint on the surface.
The second part of my argument is this: It's more important to be 'good' side of scale#1 than it is to be on the 'selfless' side of scale#2. It is my argument that scale#1 always trumps scale#2 in importance. The selfish jerk who isn't violating innocent people's rights is infinitely more desirable than the paragon of benevolence who steals and/or harms innocent people. You can't harm people or steal things, and then justify it by going out and doing a good deed, they're on separate scales, they simply don't cancel each other out. Now whether doing a good deed for someone cancels out a mean thing you did to someone, say....make fun of them(for a tame example), whether those cancel each other out, that's not for me to say but at least they're on the same scale.
So then, in my view of things, I'll admit there's gray area on both scales. Very few people are going to tip in 100% on the side of 'selfless' on scale#2, most of us are are good to everyone but can sometimes let our emotions get the best of us and, whether intentionally or unintentionally, end up being that 'jerk' to at least a few people. Similarly, very few people are going to be a complete jerk to everyone and will most likely be nice and considerate to at least a few people. On scale#1, there's gray area too. It's more noticeable where in the gray area you fall as there is less criteria to be measured on in scale#1. The person who walks out of a bookstore with a pencil accidentally, but who realizes later and doesn't feel remorse, I'm not prepared to call that person a 'bad' person, and so they fall into the gray area. I suspect most people also fall into the gray area on this scale as well. Admittedly it's easier to avoid harming people in person than to avoid harming them in property (stealing).
In any case, I've made my point. I feel there should be a distinction made between good/bad and selfish/selfless. Not violating those rights of innocent people is what's necessary in a successful society, any good or benevolent behavior on top of that is just icing on the cake. If we had a society where everyone was a complete jerk to everyone else, but no one was stealing from or harming innocent people, well....that would be a step in the right direction I feel.
So next time you hear someone referred to as a 'good person', like our good friend Russell Crowe here, consider both scales of measurement to determine for yourself whether they really are a good person or not.
