↖ Homepage of the site 'What to do with your life?'
      

What must one do to be a good person?

I define a good person as someone whose behavior does not hinder the proper functioning of the group.
To be a good person, it is necessary and sufficient not to oppose facts when they are clear.
Respecting facts and respecting others are the same thing.
As we will see, this does not require being courageous in the sense of being very hardworking, but rather courageous in the sense of being able to oppose the group, as discussed in the question 'What is an adult?'.

If, in addition, one has been privileged, is aware of it, and feels a moral obligation to give something back to the community, one becomes a very good person. Indeed, this activates a virtuous cycle: I give, and since others also give, I receive. The difficulty at this level is moving from '- I give to receive, and if I do not receive I am frustrated' to '- I give because I feel privileged in the absolute sense of not living in poverty or oppression, and if I also receive, then I feel an added gratitude towards providence'.However, care should be taken not to confuse this form of altruism with the behavior of someone who benefits from the system while cultivating a good image of themselves, which I would call an abuser. On one hand, they adopt the conventions and beliefs of their environment, which serve both to play the game of alliances and to exonerate themselves, and stubbornly refuse to take into account the facts that reveal their overall status as a profiteer. On the other hand, they multiply small gestures, and altruistic declarations. Often, they behave well in certain areas and less well in others, but they may also behave correctly individually in all areas while being part of an environment whose overall effect is negative for society. For them, altruism is a way to improve their self-image without challenging their abuses. A good example is the colonist, or a simple supporter of colonialism.

Why did I choose 'not opposing facts' rather than 'not harming others' to characterize a good person?

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

Therefore, in the end, if one does not oppose the facts, the belief falls away, and the harm to others stops. In other words, not opposing the facts is a sufficient condition to end the harm.

'Not harming others' is an expected outcome. 'Not opposing the facts' is a method to achieve it. In other words, the famous saying 'the freedom of the one ends where the freedom of the other begins' is a pious wish. In practice, one can trample on the freedom of the other without even realizing it, provided that the beliefs they rely on are not questioned, hence the facts that contradict them are ignored.
Indeed, between ignorance of the facts and harm to others, a third element is inserted: self-deception. Self-deception is the result over time of opposing the facts, most often in the passive form of simply not taking them into account. This powerful psychological mechanism of self-deception is the unexpected effect of cognitive dissonance highlighted by Leon Festinger. It allows us to maintain a good image of ourselves while continuing to abuse and requires only the simple non-consideration of disturbing facts, often by countering them with a belief placed above these facts.

Therefore, let us simply note that the ability of a non-psychotic individual to cause harm roughly corresponds to their ability to lie to themselves. The cultural sources of this self-deception are religious, social, and family beliefs, more widely developed and maintained in individuals with psychopathic tendencies.
All of this ultimately boils down to asserting that the origin of evil is the act of opposing facts, most often by simply refusing to take them into account when they are disturbing, and the development of this evil within the individual generally takes the form of self-deception.

Why is it difficult not to oppose facts?

Most people believe they are rational and therefore do not oppose facts. This belief generally reveals that they are unaware of the formidable effects of cognitive dissonance, of which we just spoke, and especially self-deception. Indeed, cognitive dissonance, as described in the book A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance by Leon Festinger, shows that when a fact contradicts a belief, it is rarely the fact that we prioritize. From then on, self-deception gradually but inevitably sets in to preserve the good image we have of ourselves. However, self-deception leads to ending up opposing facts without even being aware of it. Therefore, there is a vicious circle between opposing facts and self-deception. The latter is both the product of the former and its facilitator.

The price to pay for not opposing facts

Most social groups are held together by shared beliefs. Challenging these beliefs compromises one's membership in the group, and therefore carries the risk of social decline.

Many individuals believe they are clever enough to play both sides at this level: pretending to believe to ensure good integration into the group and therefore optimize their success in life, while remaining rational, i.e., not denying the facts. However, in his book A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Leon Festinger, supported by scientific experiments, shows that it is sufficient for the group not to exert an explicit and strong threat for the individual who does not oppose it to eventually end up believing it.

Even more difficult: applying the rules when it is clear that common sense advises not to apply them in this particular case is opposing the facts. However, not applying the rules carries a significant personal social risk. Therefore, it is easy to be a good little soldier, but hard to be a good person.

Personal indicator

At the level of the question 'How to succeed in life', we mentioned 'Not pretending' as an indicator that one is on the right path.
This indicator is also perfectly adapted to determine whether one is a good person since it indicates whether one is ready to pay the corresponding price. Indeed, pretending is trying to play both sides, thus trying to achieve a result without paying its price, and we have just shown that this does not work in the long term.

Respecting facts and respecting others is the same thing

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

Quotations

Henri Poincaré Free examination in scientific matters, 1909: 'Thought must never submit to a dogma, to a party, to a passion, to an interest, to a preconceived idea, or to anything else, if not to the facts themselves; because, for it, to submit would mean to cease to exist.'

↣ Free examination in scientific matters

Deepen the topic

See first the question 'Why is it necessary to master one's ego?' which presents the other way to approach the subject.
See then the question 'How to succeed in life?' which presents the broader issue, and especially 'What is difficult to overcome to succeed in life?'.
Also see the question 'What is an adult?' concerning more specifically the difficulty and necessity of opposing the beliefs of groups.
Chapter 22 'Citizenship, education and philosophy' in the book From capital to reason provides a more methodical construction of the morality discussed here.

Read the book A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance by Leon Festinger to understand what cognitive dissonance and its effects are, and especially chapters 4 and 5 'Effects of Forced Compliance'.

Read Krishnamurti if possible. Getting rid of beliefs to observe facts objectively is the central point of his teaching.