↖ 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 oppose the proper functioning of the group.
To be a good person, it is necessary and sufficient to not oppose the facts when they are clear.
Respecting the facts, and respecting others, is the same thing.
As we will see, this does not require being courageous in the sense of being very hardworking, but rather being 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 duty to give something back to the community, then one becomes a very good person. Indeed, one thus activates a virtuous loop: I give, and since others also give, I receive. The difficulty at this level is to move from – I give in order to receive, and if I do not receive I am frustrated – to – I give because I feel absolutely privileged not to live in misery or oppression, and if in addition I receive, then I feel a surplus of gratitude toward Providence –.
However, beware not to confuse this form of altruism with the behavior of someone who exploits the system while cultivating a beautiful image of themselves, whom I would call an abuser. On one hand, they adopt the conventions and beliefs of their environment, which serve both for alliance-building and for exculpation, and stubbornly refuse to take into account the facts that reveal their overall status as exploiters. On the other hand, they multiply small gesturesand altruistic declarations. Often, they behave well in certain domains and less well in others, but they can also behave correctly individually in all domains, 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 questioning their abuses. A good example is the colonizer, or simple partisan of colonization.

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

Let us first observe that when an individual or group seriously harms others, one almost always finds 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, and harm to others stops. In other words, not opposing the facts is a sufficient condition to put an end to harm.

'Not harming others' is an expected outcome. 'Not opposing the facts' is a method to achieve it. In other words, the famous phrase 'the freedom of others stops where mine begins' is a pious wish. Practice shows that one can trample on the freedom of others without even realizing it, provided that the beliefs upon which they rely are not questioned, meaning that the facts contradicting them are ignored.
Indeed, between ignorance of the facts and harm to others intervenes a third element: self-deception. Self-deception is the product over time of opposing the facts, most often in the passive form of simply not taking them into account. This very powerful psychological mechanism of self-deception is the unexpected effect of cognitive dissonance highlighted by Leon Festinger. It allows us to maintain a good self-image while continuing to abuse, and requires for its functioning only the simple non-take into account of disturbing facts, most often by countering them with a belief that one places above these facts.

Let us simply retain that the capacity for harm of a non-psychotic individual corresponds roughly to their capacity for self-deception. The cultural sources of this self-deception are religious, social, and family beliefs, more broadly developed and maintained in individuals with psychopathic tendencies.
All of this therefore ultimately amounts to asserting that the origin of evil is the act of opposing the 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 the facts?

Most people are convinced of being rational, and thus of not opposing the facts. This conviction generally reveals that they are unaware of the dreadful effects of cognitive dissonance which we have just discussed, and in particular self-deception. Indeed, cognitive dissonance, as described in the book A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance by Leon Festinger, shows us that when a fact opposes a belief, it is rarely the fact that we privilege. Consequently, self-deception gradually and inevitably sets in to preserve the good image we have of ourselves. Yet self-deception leads to finally opposing the facts without even being aware of it. Thus there is a vicious circle between opposing the facts and self-deception. The latter is both the product of the former and its facilitator.

The price to pay for not opposing the facts

Most social groups are united by shared beliefs. Questioning these beliefs compromises one's belonging to the group, and thus entails the risk of social downfall.

Many individuals think they are clever enough to play a double game at this level: pretend to believe in order to ensure good integration into the group, and thus optimize their success in life, while remaining rational, meaning not denying the facts. Yet, in his book A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Leon Festinger shows, with supporting scientific experiments, that it is enough for the group not to exert an explicit and strong threat for the individual who does not oppose to eventually end up believing it.

Even more difficult: applying the regulation when it is clear that common sense recommends not applying it in this particular case is opposing the facts. Yet not applying the regulation entails a significant personal social risk. It is therefore easy to be a good little soldier, but difficult to be a good person.

Kantian Morality

The keystone of Kantian morality is the categorical imperative: 'Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.' Posterity has formulated several criticisms of it (see the Wikipedia article on the categorical imperative).
Here, what we reproach it for is opposing the individual's desire and their conscience. Yet, it is not before their conscience that the individual must bend, but before the facts. What Kant lacks is the notion of self-deception produced by the resolution of cognitive dissonance. Yet, self-deception has sufficient power to align our conscience with our selfish interests, thus rendering Kantian morality inoperative. Even if Kant opposes Descartes, his constructions continue to be based on an unrealistic vision of the human being based on mere plausible introspection.

Personal Indicator

At the level of the question 'How to succeed in life', we mentioned 'Do not pretend' as an indicator that one is on the right track.
This indicator is also perfectly suited to determine if one is a good person, since it indicates whether one is ready to pay the corresponding price. Indeed, pretending is attempting to play a double game, thus attempting to obtain the result without paying the price, and we have just shown that this does not work in the long term.

Respecting the facts, and respecting others, is the same thing

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

Conclusion

To arrive at living in the real world, it is normal to have a certain dose of compromise. What is not normal is that it be based on self-deception, rather than being assumed as such, while bearing the weight of the corresponding shame.

Citations

Henri Poincaré Free Examination in Science, 1909: 'Thought must never submit, neither to a dogma, nor to a party, nor to a passion, nor to an interest, nor to a preconceived idea, nor to anything whatsoever, except to the facts themselves; because, for it, to submit would be to cease to exist.'

↣ Free examination in scientific matters

To deepen

First, see the question 'Why must one master one's ego?' which presents another way of approaching the subject.
Then, see the question 'How to succeed in life?' which presents the more general problem, 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 group beliefs.
Chapter 22 'Citizenship, Education and Philosophy' of the book From Capital to Reason provides a more methodical construction of the morality evoked here.

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

Possibly read Krishnamurti. Getting rid of beliefs to observe the facts objectively is the central point of his teaching.