What makes a good person?

[QandC]

So this is more of a philosophy question, but I'm wondering, what actually makes a good person? If we look at the notion of not being egoic/selfish and what seems good in the eyes of society etc.

Let's look at an example: A man has DISTURBING, sick, evil thoughts about people, judging them and hating the world, although this might be more of a compulsion for him and he doesn't want to be like this – but however in the real world he displays goodness and is very kind, never acts on his thoughts and everyone thinks he's a good person.

Is this a bad person or a good person? Where do we cross the line? 

[TheAvatarState]

24 minutes ago, QandC said:

Is this a bad person or a good person? Where do we cross the line? 

This is a dualistic distinction that you were spoonfed by society. Neither good nor bad exist, they are conceptualizations based solely on an individual perspective. In other words, all identity is relative and fluid. What is good or bad to you would not be to someone else, and even if you generalize a population into a collective ego that seems to have a moral compass of its own (spiral dynamics explains this), then the very rule is that society is ALWAYS evolving and changing to higher consciousness values.   A society's notion of good and bad changes all the time. 

So then you might ask, "These higher consciousness values are certainly the gold standard for 'good' right? Since that's where we're evolving towards?" Well, this gets tricky because what is "good" at one stage can be very bad at another. So from what perspective are you looking to answer this question? From society's perspective, what's good or bad depends on their stage in the spiral. From a universal perspective, good and bad don't exist and there's no difference in how one acts. From an ecological perspective, then ecological awareness (footprint) is "good" and unconsciousness is "Bad." I think that as people on this planet, that's the very least we should be doing. 

[QandC]

8 minutes ago, TheAvatarState said:

This is a dualistic distinction that you were spoonfed by society. Neither good nor bad exist, they are conceptualizations based solely on an individual perspective. In other words, all identity is relative and fluid. What is good or bad to you would not be to someone else, and even if you generalize a population into a collective ego that seems to have a moral compass of its own (spiral dynamics explains this), then the very rule is that society is ALWAYS evolving and changing to higher consciousness values.   A society's notion of good and bad changes all the time. 

So then you might ask, "These higher consciousness values are certainly the gold standard for 'good' right? Since that's where we're evolving towards?" Well, this gets tricky because what is "good" at one stage can be very bad at another. So from what perspective are you looking to answer this question? From society's perspective, what's good or bad depends on their stage in the spiral. From a universal perspective, good and bad don't exist and there's no difference in how one acts. From an ecological perspective, then ecological awareness (footprint) is "good" and unconsciousness is "Bad." I think that as people on this planet, that's the very least we should be doing. 

Well a person who has a "good mind", clear and calm, no anger or subconscious demons or unconsciousness or nothing probably wouldn't act in a bad way. So there would be a logical distinction where Good mind cannot (or will most likely not) equal a bad action, and a bad mind doesn't necessarily have to result in bad actions 

Edited January 13, 2019 by QandC

[TheAvatarState]

4 minutes ago, QandC said:

Well a person who has a "good mind", clear and calm, no anger or subconscious demons or unconsciousness or nothing probably wouldn't act in a bad way.

Conscious people act in "Bad" ways in the eyes of society all the time! Psychedelics are illegal. What they say is offensive and triggering. Their views are so "out there" that they're deemed lunatics by mainstream society. Now, the conscious person isn't acting in a "Bad" way to himself or to others, but it is seen as bad from low consciousness society's perspective. Also, everyone has flaws. Alan Watts died a raging alcoholic. "Good" people can turn into cult leaders. What I'm hoping to do here is to help break down your rigid notions of good and bad, and to see that it's all a fabrication and highly relative. 

12 minutes ago, QandC said:

So there would be a logical distinction where Good mind cannot (or will most likely not) equal a bad action, and a bad mind doesn't necessarily have to result in bad actions 

Stop thinking in terms of good and bad, it's not truthful or helpful. Think more in terms of conscious and unconscious. Well, you might object that level of awareness or consciousness is relative too. We'll, as it turns out, consciousness is a universal aspect of reality, and everyone experiences consciousness the same, as we are all one unified field of Consciousness. It isn't quantifiable or logical, but nevertheless it is an irreductible part of our experience. A conscious person will be aware that he is part of an intricately connected system, and will see how he affects his environment, IS his environment, and will act in a responsible and healthy way. An unconscious person will act out of ignorance and damage others and his environment without realizing, even though he thinks he's "good" and has the best intentions. 

[undeather]

Is it really that easy though to say "good" or "bad" doest exist? At least if you take a contextional approach: 

I mean clearly, if you become higher conciousness you extend your views on serverel issues and see them from angles you have never been before. Even if in the end, everything is a unity, there are still value propositions along the way. Non-suffering is better than suffering. Not killing someone is better than murder. Pollution is worse than a clean world. Tribal warfare is stupid. The higher you get up the spiral, the wider your conciousness becomes, the more "bad" things you are able to see. 

If we dont have any compass at all, there would be chaos. Maybe I am wrong though - this is a new territory for me!

[Anton Rogachevski]

@QandC

In a sense a "bad person" is simply unhealthy, and is a result of a faulty system, or a fault in the genes.

If you are good, you are lucky, if you are bad your are unlucky. But it's also a process in which everything is striving for balance, and it's inevitable. One might say: God's will.

A healthy person would be kind of like that:

Authentic, humble, integrated, high emotional intelligence, worked for many years on his flaws, or grown in a very healthy environment.

Or simply put Developed.

Edited January 13, 2019 by Anton Rogachevski

[QandC]

Understand all of your answers. Going with the non-duality approach here I think is kind of stupid simply because normal human beings don't think in those terms. Good luck even mentioning consciousness or the absolute in a moral debate, they'll all look at you like you're crazy. We're not there yet so we need to adapt. My original question is basically is it Action or Thoughts that constitutes what makes a person good or bad?

Edited January 14, 2019 by QandC

[Dayo]

And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

Mark 10:18 (ESV)
 

[NoSelfSelf]

Person who is on high level of conciousness see video by leo high vs low level of  conciousness i think is the name of the vid..

[Anton Rogachevski]

14 hours ago, QandC said:

My original question is basically is it Action or Thoughts that constitutes what makes a person good or bad?

Since neither is really in his control, then none of them. As I said, pure luck. (or god's will)

[TheAvatarState]

20 hours ago, QandC said:

a moral debate

That's exactly what your question plays into, and precisely what I wanted to avoid. All such debates are pointless, due to the fact they're completely subjective and groundless. 

As a self-actualizer, you must work to understand, then love all viewpoints and notions of good and bad. Just the fact you're posting this thread means you haven't opened yourself up to enough viewpoints to see the beautiful, yet partial truths in each one. The validity of each perspective...

20 hours ago, QandC said:

Understand all of your answers. Going with the non-duality approach here I think is kind of stupid

No you don't. All self-deception has a common thread: you think you know something which you do not know. 

 

All that being said, if I had to give an answer, it would be close to Leo's 65 Core principles for living the good life. Life is a love simulator, so learning to love is key. Be present, raise consciousness. No ideology. Systems thinker, etc... 

Again, this is all subjective and from the narrow human perspective, and moreover, only applicable in the 21st century, most likely. Such an answer still has its dangers, and if not understood, you have the possibility of treating it as an ideology. 

[QandC]

@TheAvatarState Let's not go into some "I'm more enlightened than you"-type of debate. I've had plenty of non-duality experiences and glimpses to know my question (or no other question on this forum) for that matter doesn't makes any sense. That doesn't mean there should be a discussion about it. Saying "There is no point in arguing because we all have different perspectives" is also stupid. I know we all do, but there is something in our psychology to the common human mind that knows what is wrong or right. Enlightened or a psychopath, there are still logical collective agreements to what is Good or Bad. My question was not denying that Good or Bad is relative – I know that. Read my question again and look deeper

Also, I know that there are beautiful things and good things and accepting things in any horrible situation. Imagine a murderer and a rapist, you can still find goodness in their actions, because you shouldn't label it. As soon as you label you separate and moralise. But only problem is that doesn't work in the real world. Actually TRY to use that. This is why we have to adapt whilst accepting their lower consciousness perspective – THAT is true growth and and understanding. Thinking your upper higher consciousness perspective is above is also a value system and a moralising system 

Edited January 15, 2019 by QandC

[TheAvatarState]

I read your question again. Being egoic/selfish is actually encouraged by society. It's a system designed to produce unconsciousness. 

In your second paragraph, the man who thinks horrible thoughts is perceived as good by society, but is actually unknowingly spreading horrible energies to other people. A person's state is contagious, so that man is doing great harm in his community. But unbeknownst to ANYONE in the community! Does that make him bad? Who are you to judge someone for something they weren't ultimately responsible for? What about the rapist, terrorist, or murderer? Do you think he just love raping people from the get go?Or do you think certain events, brainwashing, and a terrible childhood inevitably led them to the act? 

2 hours ago, QandC said:

As soon as you label you separate and moralise. But only problem is that doesn't work in the real world. Actually TRY to use that.

I am, and I'm moving more and more into that every day. It's not easy, and it sure seems really counter-intuitive. But this is true growth and understanding. 

I'm not making a claim that "I'm more enlightened than you" and I'm certainly not enlightened! This is simply taking on radical new perspectives with the same sincerity as my own, and finding there was Truth to be found, and no fundamental difference. You cannot be unconditionally loving while making a distinction between good and bad out there in the world... It's just not possible. 

We are all simultaneously God and the Devil, so to speak. What we do does not make us one or the other. We are all capable of great good and great evil. You might be wondering if that leaves us in a groundless position, and if we should do anything good! A relative sense of good and bad is a must, but you can never impose it or judge others on it. The sense of good and bad being out there to live up to was a religious idea, and holds no water. In fact, that line of thinking has led to much war and violence. General sense of good and bad is something that's created collectively over time as society moves up the spiral.

If there's any answer to be given, it is to love, to connect, to raise consciousness (as that's where we're moving towards on the spiral, not because we have to, just because forces are leading us. You can't judge the forces as good, it's just a recognition and observation of where we're going). 

The highest form of love requires the complete dismantling of the notion of good and evil. That's all I'm pointing to. I'm really not trying to argue with you, just wanted to clear up my points.