What it means to be a good person has always been a matter of philosophical debate. Notably, many ancient philosophers of the Greek and Roman era such as Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, etc., discussed what it meant to be a good person, and how to attain said goodness. In general, it was agreed that being a good person meant being a moral person, or, in other words, a person of virtue. However, this raises another question altogether when it comes to the field of political science: Is a good and virtuous person synonymous with a good citizen. In this query, it would appear that there is plenty of room for vigorous debate. To define a good person according to guidelines of ancient philosophy we must first look at the various virtues that are …show more content…
In essence, it would seem that a good citizen prescribes and upholds the constitution of the regime under which he or she serves. However, this can mean very different things depending on the virtuousness of the regime. It becomes increasingly difficult to say that a good citizen must be a good person, or vice-versa. While this can exist, it can only occur in an instance where a person is living to his or her highest virtue under the best (most virtuous regime). In any other case, the it would appear that a rather stark dichotomy can exist between being a good and moral individual and a good citizen. To put this argument into a more modern context, we can look at Nazi Germany during the period of World War Two. A good citizen prescribes to the laws and constitution of the regime under which they preside. Thus, a good citizen of Nazi Germany would participate in the oppression and subjugation of Jews and other minorities. This stands in stark contrast to the cardinal platonic virtues of being a good individual. Conversely, an individual who living under the regime of Nazi Germany might stand out against the atrocities committed by the government, and live in a morally righteous manner. However, this would entail them being a poor
Also, it could be said that one can be a ‘good person’ and a valued
For Aristotle, happiness is defined as “an activity of soul in accordance with complete excellence... (Aristotle 1102a). This means that actions exercised through, and guided by, human virtues turns out to be a good that is an “... activity of soul in conformity to excellence...” (Aristotle 1098b). Therefore, the characteristic allowing a person to perform well is virtue. To further explain this concept you can use the example of
Doing good deeds makes one a good person, right? One definition of a good person is someone who does good acts but doesn’t truly mean and feel it in their heart. Lane A. Dean Jr. is an example of
Moran, Sean. "Greek Conceptions of Virtue." Waterford Institute of Technology (n.d.): 1-5. Web. 30 Nov. 2013.
17, No. 3, p. 252-259. Urmson, J.O., (1988). Aristotle’s Ethics (Blackwell), ch.1. Wilkes, K.V., (1978). The Good Man and the Good for Man in Aristotle’s Ethics. Mind 87; repr.
In deciding whether or not a person is good, all of their characteristics must be looked at.
Good Citizenship is something that is valued by a country. Although not normally noticed or recognized, good citizenship can come in many forms and can be very beneficial to a specified area. Good Citizenship could mean many different things but ultimately good citizenship promotes prosperity, and increases the well-being of said region. In this country we do have government officials, but they only can do so much, and reach so far, in this country you need to focus on "...Not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" (Kennedy). This means pulling your own weight and not relying solely on these officials and their policies, to get out and try to make this country the best it can be. Which is why through the use of the educatory school system in the United States and through obeying laws of their city/state or nation, and also through the practice of Volunteer work/charity the average American citizen can become above-average and awesome (in every sense of the word) and can also develop into a righteous, upstanding, convivial citizen.
Throughout history, people evaluated themselves and others based on moral judgements. The basis of those evaluations changed over time. In the Homeric period, from approximately 1200-800 BCE, people practiced “warrior ethics.” Warrior ethics were based on teleology, meaning all things had a purpose/function in society. The concept of good/bad was directly related to how well the function was performed. For example, a warrior was considered good when he was an excellent warrior and bad if he performed poorly. In Homeric times, excellence was considered god-like.
Aristotle defines virtue (also known as excellence) of humankind as living in accordance with reason in the best kind of way. Simply put, doing what is characteristic of a thing to do. He argues that our reasoning, which is the foundation for our virtues, derives from habit and not from nature.
One of Aristotle’s conclusions in the first book of Nicomachean Ethics is that “human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue”(EN 1.7.1098a17). This conclusion can be explicated with Aristotle’s definitions and reasonings concerning good, activity of soul, and excellence through virtue; all with respect to happiness.
What makes a good person good? According to WikiHow, "We should learn to define our own morals ourselves. One of the simplest ways to do so is to love others, and treat them as you would like to be treated. Try to think of others before yourself. Even doing small things daily will greatly enrich and improve your life, and the lives of others around you." This quote shows us what we need to do in order to be what society thinks as, “good". In order to be a good person, you have to do good and moral things in your society consistently. However people might think that by doing one good thing once in a while will automatically make you a “good person”, but in reality it doesn’t.
Furthermore, author and researcher Bradley Doucet makes the claim how a good society embodies virtue, and that the citizens of the hypothetical “Good Society” would be “of great virtue”, always striving to sustain the “prosperous, peaceful, positive, passionate, private society” (Doucet). There is a powerful, striking resemblance to Franklin’s arguments here as
Consequently, if indeed there are several kinds of constitution, it is clear that there cannot be a single virtue that is the virtue-of a good citizen. But the good man, we say, does express a single virtue: the complete one. Evidently, then, it is possible for someone to be a good citizen without having acquired the virtue expressed by a good man" (1276b). What Aristotle doesn't tell us is who is better off. Is it sufficient to be the good citizen or is it definitely more satisfying to be the good man? The good man is recognizably superior to the good citizen. The good man possesses everything that is good. He does what is just and what is just is beneficial to himself and to those around him. His soul is completely well-ordered and, therefore, cannot allow for his desires to take over and commit evil or injustice of any kind.
... an action is performed, it has a determined relevance for future actions and entities so we have to make sure that our actions are the right ones. That is to say, not just any action, is an ethical action. An ethical action requires Goodness. By performing an action which can be described as good, my individual good action is linked with all good actions. It has been defined by the notion of Goodness, and contributes to the definition of Goodness. We have, then, a reciprocal relation between the good for the individual and the common good grounded in Whiteheadian metaphysics.
the right way to go. Aristotle says that virtues are something that we