Philosophy Now Forum

The end of the description for this forum says "Or should you conentrate on becoming a good person?". I argue that this is a) recursive if made the basis of morality, since a "good" person is just one who acts morally, and b) not something that can be "concentrated" on, as if it were somehow distinct from the other two things said in the description ("duty" and "consequences"). My reasoning behind b is that virtuousness is an emergent quality rather than a substantive one, ie. to be a good person is to do good acts, so being a good person and doing the right stuff are not separate objectives, as the description seems to posit.

Greetings, Sentinel

You write: "The end of the description for this forum says "Or should you conentrate on becoming a good person?". I argue that this is a) recursive if made the basis of morality, since a "good" person is just one who acts morally, and b) not something that can be "concentrated" on..."

May I suggest another perspective on this? Yes, one can concentrate on having a good character and/or being a good person. Let me explain why.

There are three kinds of norms:

(S) Formal norms.

(E) Facultative norms.

(I) Obligatory norms.

Examples. A formal norm may be Xs are to be Ys. This is a proposition in Logic, as part of a formal system of Ethics.

The facultative norm for this statement might be: Humans are to be good persons, (decent to one another, kind, helpful, ready to be of service if possible, responsible and accountable, compassionate, inclusive, tolerant, respectful, courteous, devoted to making things better, etc.)

The obligatory norm relevant here would be:
I want to be a good person, and I intend to be so
My attitude will be: Whatever it takes! Thus I will be mindful of the Central Question of Life, seeking to engage in deliberate practice of it - focusing on each detail involved and making tiny adjustments to stay on track... until it becomes a habit to ask it of myself. It amounts to: How can I make things better for all concerned? How can I, in this situation, upgrade it? How can I add value?

If there is an activity with respect to which I tend to procrastinate, I am going to approach it from an axiogenic standpoint: I will FOCUS; and GET IT DONE !!!

If I notice a Perception Gap (wherein people seem to be addressing the same topic but are actually talking around each other - perhaps due to the ambiguity of their words, etc.) I will ask questions, seek deeper understanding of the other person's position, so that I can get at the heart of the gap, and do what I can to close the gap, to find the common ground, to reconcile. That is the axiogenic approach to the problem.

Readers: What are your thoughts on this? Any ideas to contribute? Does any of this make sense?

Yes, it does make sense. I think however I may have been misunderstood. By saying it wasn't something that couldn't be concentrated on, I did not mean you can't give attention to it, I just meant that it isn't really distinct from the other two things in the description (which, now that I think about it, aren't separate either). My thesis was that since a good person is just someone who does their duty (which is to do actions with good consequences), one needn't give conscious attention to one's own moral standing as the basis of morality; you will become a good person precisely by virtue of doing your duty.