What does it take to be a good person?

I define a good person as someone whose behavior does not interfere with the proper functioning of the group.
To be a good person, you just have to not oppose the facts when they are clear.
Respect for facts and respect for others are the same thing.
As we will see, this does not require being courageous in the sense of very hardworking, but being courageous in the sense of being able to oppose the group, as seen in the question 'What is an adult?'

Why did you choose 'not to oppose the facts', and not 'not to harm others', to characterize someone good?

Let us note to begin with that when an individual or a group seriously harms others, we almost always find a belief, which serves to exempt oneself from moral responsibility, contradicted by facts which are ignored.
Here are some examples:


Colonization is based on the belief in the inferiority of the colonized races.


The abuse of the elites, who profit excessively from the system to the detriment of the general population, is based on an overvaluation of personal merits (belief) in relation to luck and family nepotism, contradicted by sociological studies (facts).


In the world of work, the excessive reliance on mere pressure on subordinates to achieve the expected level of performance is underpinned by the belief that 'best practices' are proven organizational optima, and so if it doesn't work in the end

So, in the end, if one does not oppose the facts, the belief falls, and the nuisance to others stops.

'Do no harm to others' is an expected outcome.

Why is it difficult not to oppose the facts?

Most people are persuaded to be rational, and therefore not to oppose the facts.

The price to pay for not opposing the facts

Most social groups are held together by shared beliefs.

Many people think they are smart enough to be able to play a double game at this level: pretend to believe in it to ensure their proper integration into the group, and therefore optimize their success in life, while remaining rational, that is A theory of cognitive dissonance, Léon Festinger shows us, scientific experiments in support, that it is enough that the group does not exert an explicit and strong threat so that the individual who does not oppose is led to end up believing in it.

More difficult still: to apply the regulation when it is clear that common sense recommends not to apply it in this particular case, it is to oppose the facts.

Personal Indicator

On the level of the question 'How to succeed in life', we evoked 'Not pretending' as an indicator that we are on the right track.
This indicator is also perfectly adapted to determine if one is a good person since it indicates if one is ready to pay the corresponding price.

Respect for facts, and respect for others, it's the same thing

What opposes both respect for facts and respect for others is the ego (here social ambition or what one wants) which prevails over reason.


Voir tout d'abor la question 'Pourquoi faut-il maîtriser son ego ?' qui présente l'autre manière d'aborder le sujet.
Voir ensuite la question 'Comment réussir sa vie ?' qui présente la problématique plus générale.
See also the question 'What is an adult?' Read the book A theory of cognitive dissonance by Léon Festinger to understand precisely what cognitive dissonance is and its effects, and more particularly chapters 4 and 5 'Effects of forced submission'.
Finally read Krishnamurti.


2022-09-12 15:04:59 Hubert   

Texte refondu.

New comment

From :

Message Title: