DAY 81 - What is a Good Person?

1. Virtue

In ethical systems based on virtue, a good person would be one who possessed the virtues the ethical system held. A virtuous person would be, by definition, a good person. For Aristotleans, this would be a person who followed the Golden Mean and was perfecting themselves. For Thomists, it would be a person who used their God-given sense of reason to follow a path to God. Buddhists would follow the Eightfold Path towards Nirvana. The criteria for a good person in Confucianism is defined socially: Does the person properly carry out their obligations to others, promoting harmony in society?

Virtue systems subjectively determine what is good and then set out that people should acquire good qualities: A person with virtues will act virtuously. Good is thus internalized and schooling yourself in the virtues is tantamount.

2. Duty

In duty systems, a good person follows the rules. This may be hard for them (or for others), but it is the right thing to do. The rules are external to you, and it is your obedience to them that qualifies your goodness.

In religious systems, a good person is one who follows the rules of the religion. For example, someone who is pious and holy, observes the rituals, and follows the teachings. For Kantians, it would be using your reason to grasp the natural order of things and see clearly the Categorical Imperative for any type of moral situation. Stoics would follow the dictates of "natural law".

In a duty system then it is one's responsibility to:

1. Know and understand one's duty, and
2. Act according to it.

3. Consequence

For consequentialists the criteria for being a good person is based on the outcome of personal actions. Thus a good person, as such, does not exist, just a person who does good things. 

For rational egoists, such as Ayn Rand, a good person would act in their own best interest. 

For utilitarians, the definition of a "good" act would be based on how it affected others, that is, the greatest good principle. Judging someone to be good would be judging whether their actions were intended to promote the greater good.

The Binding of Isaac

In the painting Abraham and Isaac , created by Rembrandt in 1634, an angel prevents the sacrifice of Isaac.

In the Old Testament story of Genesis, the patriarch Abraham is told by God to take his son Isaac and sacrifice him on Mount Moriah.  Abraham is a pious, dutiful man, obedient to the will of God. He tricks Isaac into accompanying him, binds him, and throws him on the altar. Just as Abraham is about to plunge his knife into his son, an angel appears and tells him to desist: It appears it was all just a test of his faith. God indicates his pleasure that Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his son in obedience to God's will, and blesses Abraham and his descendants. To read the story for yourself, click here.

Abraham is a founding figure for the three "Abrahamic" religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. He is generally considered a model of the righteous man; one who lives according to the will of God, putting God's wishes before his own.

But the story has some troubling aspects. Was God testing Abraham? Many argue that God wanted to see if Abraham's faith was so strong that he would overcome his natural revulsion, and fatherly love, and kill his own son. But if so, many have asked what kind of God would test a faithful servant in this way.

Abraham is called the "father of faith" for his willingness to sacrifice his son at God's command. But was Abraham really prepared to carry out such an abhorrent deed? There are indications in the story that Abraham knew he would not actually have to sacrifice Isaac. As the two of them left their home, Abraham told his servants that they would return. To some, this indicates that Abraham knew that God would stop the act before it was carried out. But this interpretation makes the whole episode a charade and paints Abraham as insincere. It also undermines the extent of Abraham's honesty in his relationship with God.

If Abraham was prepared to kill Isaac, should he still be considered a good person? If he was not, should he still be considered a faithful servant of God?

Soren Kierkegaard

Soren Kierkegaard was a rather unconventional Danish theologian of the 19^th century. He is associated with the beginnings of the existential school, for his musings on the purpose of existence. Kierkegaard was extremely critical of organised religion, believing that true Christianity involved listening to the inner voice of faith. The truth that you receive from this inner voice cannot be explained or demonstrated to anyone else-it is yours alone and will defy all attempts to prove it.

In opposition to Thomism, Kierkegaard believed that faith could not be understood using reason, as that would involve trying to find logical arguments to explain the illogical. Instead, one must suspend reason and take a leap of faith. You must embrace the absurdity of the contradiction required by faith and simply trust in God's superior judgement. While in normal cases reason can help you determine right and wrong, when it comes to matters of faith it will not help you.

In terms of ethics, this meant that there were essentially two moralities for each person: the 'normal' everyday morality which could be based on reason and the absurd, faith-based leap when it came to matters related to religious truth.

In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard addressed the story of the "Binding of Isaac". In his interpretation, Abraham is taking such a leap of faith by preparing to do something he knows is wrong. But in this case, what transforms a normally wrong act into a right act is that he is commanded to do so by God. God's command overrules all human ideas of right and wrong; God transcends human morality. 

Abraham recognized that his obedience to God took precedence over all other moral duties: He served a higher Power. To truly serve God, one must suspend all ethical judgement. Abraham is a good person because he obeyed God, even though his actions ran counter to normal human morality.

Kierkegaard was criticized for this mystical approach to faith that runs so counter to reason. Many people claim that God has given them private commands. Typically, they are considered mentally unstable, particularly when they report that God tells them to commit murder. For Kierkegaard, this is exactly the point that illustrates Abraham's faith: while Abraham might appear deluded to observers, he himself knows the truth. Abraham becomes the Father of Faith and is blessed for his recognition that obeying the commands of God, no matter how much they run counter to human reason, is the true morality.

Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) was brought up in a very religious, wealthy household in Copenhagen. Strongly influenced by his father, who felt that his sins had cursed his family, Soren was educated at prestigious institutions, set on a career in religion. However, he switched his studies to philosophy and considered himself a poet. He spent his life in and around the Danish capital, travelling abroad only five times in his life. Always somewhat melancholy, at the age of 24 he fell deeply in love with 15-year old Regine Olsen. Three years later, he proposed marriage, only to break off the engagement less than a year later. The actual reason he did this is unknown, but Kierkegaard made allusions to his being too 'melancholic' to be suited for marriage.

Kierkegaard wrote much of his work under pseudonyms. For example, Fear and Trembling was authored by 'Johnannes de Silentio'. He claimed that this practice distanced himself from these works and their ideas, as if they were written by him 'in character' and that the views expressed might not even be his own but those of the 'character' who wrote the book.

Here is one of Kierkegaard's more famous quotations, full of Existential angst:

"One sticks one's finger into the soil to tell by the smell in what land one is: I stick my finger in existence - it smells of nothing. Where am I? Who am I? How came I here? What is this thing called the world? What does this world mean? Who is it that has lured me into the world? Why was I not consulted, why not made acquainted with its manners and customs instead of throwing me into the ranks, as if I had been bought by a kidnapper, a dealer in souls? 

How did I obtain an interest in this big enterprise they call reality? Why should I have an interest in it? Is it not a voluntary concern? And if I am to be compelled to take part in it, where is the director? I should like to make a remark to him. Is there no director? Whither shall I turn with my complaint?" From: Repetition (1843)

To Do: Note-taking Exercise

As part of your own note for this activity you should read this and answer the questions that follow (for your own notes to refer to later on).

"The Binding of Isaac" is an archetypal story of a man driven to choose between his faith and his sense of morality. Sacrificing his son is wrong, and Abraham knows it, but he must obey God, even to the point of committing a horrible, immoral act. Of course, God prevents him from carrying out the murder of Isaac (which he commanded), and all ends well.

In a modern, Canadian context, of course, Abraham's actions would be viewed in a wholly different light. These are not days of 'Old Testament' biblical faith. The neighbours would have called the police, Isaac would have been rescued, and Abraham's story of a commandment from God would not have carried much weight in court.

As part of your note on this topic you should take the position of four different people participating in the modern day trial of Abraham on a charge of attempted murder. You will write several bullet-points for each of the characters below, each discussing the 'criminal act' committed by Abraham. I have suggested for you the point of view to be taken by each participant is provided, and I have suggested an Ethical System that can be used as the basis for your points.   Include quotes, theories, specific references to society.

1. Abraham, explaining why he did what he did. (Divine Command)

2. Isaac, defending his father's righteousness, and pointing out all the rewards God has bestowed on the family as a result. (Consequentialist)

3. The Crown Attorney, who wants Abraham put away for a long, long time. (Duty)

4. A neighbour, called as a 'character' witness by the defence, who will attest to what a good person Abraham is. (Virtue)