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

What do you have to do to be a good person?

I define a good person as someone whose behavior does not interfere with the good functioning of the group.
To be a good person, it is necessary and sufficient not to 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?'.

If in addition we have been privileged, that we are aware of it, and that we feel the moral duty to give something back to the community, then we become someone very well. Indeed, we thus activate a virtuous loop: I give, and as others also give, I receive. The difficulty at this level is to go from - I give to receive, and if I do not receive I am frustrated - to - I give because I feel privileged in absolute terms of not living in misery or oppression, and if I still receive, then I have an additional gratitude towards providence -.
Be careful not to confuse this form of altruism with the behavior of the one who benefits from the system while cultivating a beautiful image of himself, and which I would qualify as abuser. On the one hand, he adopts the conventions and beliefs of his environment, which are used both in the game of alliances and to exonerate it, and obstinately refuses to take into account the facts which reveal his global status of profiteer. On the other, he multiplies Small gestures, et les déclarations altruistes. Souvent, il se comporte bien dans certains domaines, et moins bien dans d'autres, mais il peut aussi très bien se comporter correctement à titre individuel dans tous les domaines, tout en faisant partie d'un milieu dont l'effet global est négatif pour la société. Pour lui, l'altruisme est une manière d'améliorer l'image de lui même, tout en ne remettant pas en cause ses abus. Un bon exemple est le colon, ou simple partisan de la colonisation.

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

Let us begin by observing that when an individual or 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:

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

'Do no harm to others' is an expected result. 'Don't oppose the facts' is one way to do this. In other words, the famous phrase 'the freedom of some ends where that of others begins' is wishful thinking. Practice shows that some can trample on the freedom of others without even realizing it, as long as the beliefs on which they rely are not called into question, and therefore the facts which contradict them are ignored.
Indeed, between the ignorance of the facts and the nuisance to others is in question a third element which is the lie to oneself. The lie to oneself is the product in time to oppose the facts, most often in the passive form of simply not taking them into account. This very powerful psychological mechanism of lie to oneself is the unexpected effect of cognitive dissonance highlighted by Léon Festinger. It allows us to keep a good image of ourselves, while continuing to abuse, and requires to function only the simple not taken into account the facts that disturb, most often by thwarting them by a belief that we place above these facts.

Let us therefore simply remember that the capacity for harm of a non-psychotic individual corresponds roughly to his capacity to lie to himself. The cultural sources of this lie to oneself are religious, social and family beliefs, more widely developed and maintained in individuals with psychopathic tendencies.
All this ultimately amounts to affirming that the origin of evil is the fact 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 oneself. the individual generally takes the form of lying to oneself.

Why is it difficult not to object to the facts?

Most people believe they are rational, and therefore not opposed to the facts. This belief generally reveals that they are unaware of the dreaded effects of cognitive dissonance that we have just talked about, and in particular lying to oneself. Indeed, cognitive dissonance, as described in the book A theory of cognitive dissonance From Léon Festinger, shows us that when a fact opposes a belief, it is rarely the fact that we favor. Consequently, the lie to oneself is gradually puts itself but inevitably in place, to preserve the right image that we have of us. Now the lie to oneself leads to ending up opposing the facts without even being aware of it. There is therefore a vicious circle between opposing the facts and lying to oneself. The second is both the product of the first, and its facilitator.

The price to pay for not opposing the facts

Most social groups are united by shared beliefs. To question these beliefs is to compromise one's belonging to the group, and therefore take the risk of social decline.

Many individuals think they are smart enough to be able to play a double game at this level: pretending to believe in it to ensure their good integration into the group, and therefore optimize their success in life, while remaining rational, it is up to say not denying the facts. However, in his book A theory of cognitive dissonance, Léon Festinger shows us, supported by scientific experiments, that it is enough for the group not to exercise an explicit and strong threat for the individual who does not oppose to end up believing in it.

Even more difficult: applying the regulations when it is clear that common sense recommends that it does not apply it in this particular case is to oppose the facts. However, not applying the regulations is taking a significant personal social risk. It is therefore easy to be a good little soldier, but difficult to be someone good.

Personal indicator

At the level of the question 'How to succeed in life', we talked about 'Don't pretend' as an indicator that we are on the right track.
This indicator is also perfectly suited to determining whether one is a good person since it indicates whether one is willing to pay the corresponding price. Indeed, pretending is trying to play a double game, therefore trying to obtain the result without paying the price, and we have just shown that this does not work in the long term.

Respect for facts and respect for others are the same thing

What is opposed, both to respect for the facts and to respect for others, is the ego (here social ambition or what we want) which prevails over reason.

Quotes

Henri Poincaré Free examination in scientific matters, 1909: “Thought must never be submitted, neither to a dogma, nor to a party, nor to a passion, to an interest, nor to a preconceived idea, neither anything, if not to the facts themselves; Because, for her, to submit, it would be to stop existing. »»

↣ Free examination in scientific matters

Go deeper

First see the question 'Why do you need to control your ego?' which presents the other way of approaching the subject.
See then the question 'How to succeed in life?' which presents the more general problem, and above all 'What is difficult to overcome to succeed in life?'.
See also question 'What is an adult?'more specifically concerning the difficulty and the need to oppose the beliefs of the groups.
Chapter 22 'Citizenship, education and philosophy' from the book From capital to reason provided a more methodical construction of the moral mentioned here.

Read the book A theory of cognitive dissonance by Léon Festinger to understand what cognitive dissonance and its effects are precisely, and more particularly chapters 4 and 5 'effects of forced submission'.

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