How do you determine whether you are or aren’t?
This is a discussion on Are you a good person? within the General Chat forums, part of the The Cafe Lounge category; ...
How do you determine whether you are or aren’t?
no, i just know
No, but I have good intentions. The results aren't good though
yeah i'd say i am cuz i feel good, and i usually feel bad if i do bad things
There's no such thing as a good or bad person. People are flawed and complicated and everyone has issues. We all have good traits and bad traits, and emotionally unhealthy people tend to have more negative traits than good, which can reverse as they become healthier. A supposed good person can similarly become a supposed bad person by emotionally or mentally deteriorating enough. Being what's seen as a good person can be for completely self-serving reasons. People can also do awful things believing what they're doing is for the good of mankind. A person can do a bad thing in service of themselves, but something caused that to happen, which had it not happened, they wouldn't be doing that bad thing, in which case, would they then be a good person, even though that trigger/those triggers would cause them to then do bad things? How do you know people you consider to be good people wouldn't also do that bad thing if they have the same triggers? Does that potential then make those people you think are good bad people? Everyone has a breaking point where they'd become capable of doing bad things. People just be people. You're people, I'm people, either we approve of each other or we don't.
TL;DR hell yeah I'm a saint
No, not at all. You need malicious thinking to pre-empt malice and discourage it effectively.
Good people are often enablers that need to be defended, counseled or assisted, that's where folks like me come in.
Depends on how we define a "good person". I'm sure to many I would be a "bad person". To most, I'd probably be a "good person". I guess that makes me a "decent person, who strives to be good".
i'm a human good for capitalist consumption
I'm thinking if we're not to treat human desires as independent of morality as found in the disjunction of is and ought where morality is little more than an an unconscious reflex that to determine that someone is good is to judge their character (their stable and enduring traits found in their habits) as having positive virtues.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/s...s/brenkert.htmWhich is why the question is about you being a good person rather than confined to what constitute good behaviours although character may be inferred in part by these.However, there is another understanding of morality which should not be forgotten. This is the sense of morality in which morality is linked with certain virtues, excellences, or flourishing ways of living. In this sense, morality is not primarily concerned with rules and principles, but with the cultivation of certain dispositions or traits of character. This view has been expressed in this way: ‘The moral law ... has to be expressed in the form, “be this”, not in the form, “do this” ... the true moral law says “hate not”, instead of “kill not”...... the only mode of stating the moral law must be a rule of character.’ 
And as such, can you be described as couragoues, kind, honest or any sort of positive quality?
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablu...d%20Utopia.pdfWhen asked what sort of person you are, what would people say? What virtues and vices would come readily to mind? That you were resentful, contemptuous, fair and just?The point is that reflecting against abstract and implausible criteria while carrying out elaborate hypothetical calculations is just not how people actually make decisions. This is not surprising because it would be actually impossible to make decisions in that way and attempts to do so invariably lead to perverse outcomes. It is when two or more rules conflict and we are called upon to decide which rule to prioritize or have to find a creative via media that ethics comes into play at all, and neither consequentialism nor deontology can help us when facing these kind of quandaries.
The richness of the vocabulary for virtues and vices – prudence, courage, self-respect, humility, intelligence, intuition, firmness, kindness, fairness, empathy, flexibility, consistency, …. versus carelessness, cowardice, hubris, insensitivity, … – evidences the complexity of the process of determining one’s course of action in difficult situations and the depth of personal character that is called upon to act wisely.
For correct decisions we must rely upon the judgment of a person in command of the relevant virtues and is in possession of all the facts. This is why we have judges and juries and we do not simply appoint a clerk to look up the relevant legal provision and read off the verdict. It always requires judgment, and the virtues needed to make a good judgment and carry it through can only be acquired through a moral education in the relevant tradition. Aristotle called the wisdom entailed in knowing how to act in the face of complex and conflicting imperatives phronesis.