> > Again, I'm on a work break so I don't have time to check this out thoroughly (will try to remember to do so when I get home), but my memories of the coverage of the debate about whether to go to war or not are almost entirely of people talking about WMDs and of those silly satellite pictures that showed supposed weapons factories. Freeing the Iraqi people took a backseat to our reaction to the "threat" that Hussein was supposedly presenting. I'm willing to admit that my memory is incorrect once I see a source that contradicts it, but again I don't have the time to search for sources now and so I'm going on what I remember for the moment.
>
> Hmm? You'll have to point me at the part where I claimed that arms in Iraq was not an issue. I never denied that rhetoric about whether there were weapons of mass destruction played a major role; I merely refuted your statement that freedom for the Iraqi people "became a major objective only after a few months had gone by without our finding any weapons."

I didn't take what you said to mean that weapons in Iraq was not an issue, but rather that the freedom of the Iraqi people was much more of an issue than was weapons in Iraq, and that's what I was disagreeing with.

Going back to take another look at what you actually said, I can see that my interpretation of what you meant was a bit of an extrapolation.

> > a) takes care to behave in an ethical manner;
>
> Based on my understanding of what "ethical" means (backed up by dictionary.com, at least), you mean that a good person adheres to accepted standards of conduct. Yes?

I would probably add a condition that ethical conduct involves a moral dimension in addition to a standard of societal acceptability. Someone who acts ethically treats others in a humane manner.

> > b) deeply and sincerely cares about others -- not in a friends-and-family sense, but in a rest-of-humanity sense;
>
> I can't penetrate this statement. In what way is caring about people "in a rest-of-humanity sense" different from caring about people in a "friends-and-family sense?"

It's perfectly possible to care deeply about your friends, family, etc. but look with utter scorn at the homeless person on the street or dismiss people dying of AIDS in Africa. I suppose what I'm trying to describe is a recognition that every person is human, and as human deserves to be cared for and accorded a certain measure of dignity; a sincere determination to try to stop instinctively of the world into us-and-them categories and caring only about the "us"es. Caring about others in a rest-of-humanity sense means recognizing that even the people who seem totally different from you are not wholly other, and that no matter how much you disagree with them you should respect them, treat them as fellow human beings, and if possible rectify any wrongs or injustices in their lives instead of passing by without a second glance when you could offer some help.

I hope that that's at least a little clearer. Keep prodding me if it isn't. ;)

> > c) consistently acts in ways that improve others' lives but do not directly benefit the person him or herself in any substantial way;
>
> How consistently? Who decides whether or not other people's lives have been improved? How significant an improvement is required to qualify?

Do you want me to give you a percentage of the time that someone has to act in a way to improve others' lives in order to be considered a good person? This isn't a scientific inquiry, and even in psychology, judging others' behavior almost always ends up involving somewhat subjective judgment calls. I can try to give you somewhat more specific criteria, but at some point they can't be specified beyond "what you think x is."

I would say that "consistently" would mean that when someone has the opportunity to act in a way that improves others' lives, that person acts in that way the majority of the time. Better to seek out such opportunities, but if someone just doesn't let whatever opportunities happen to come along pass by that's better than doing nothing.

I think that whoever is making the judgment of whether someone is a good person decides if other people's lives have been improved. The sort of questions that I would tend to ask if I were the one making this judgment would be: Does the person (people) whose life has been improved now have access to resources (food, education, advice, other aid, ...) of which s/he (they) was previously in need? Has a source of stress or physical/emotional pain/debilitation been removed from the person's life? Is the person happier than s/he was before the intervention of another?

In terms of significance of improvement, I'd again say that the person judging whether someone is a good person would be the one to judge the significance of the improvements that that person has made in others' lives. I tend to think that even the smallest improvement is worth noting.

> > d) does not resort to violence unless given absolutely no other option
>
> How do you define "absolutely no other option?" For example, if you have a desirable goal that cannot be acheived without violence, is that considered having "absolutely no other option?" Or would goodness, in your view, demand abandoning that goal in favour of eschewing violence?

My answer to that question depends entirely on the goal and the degree of violence needed to achieve it. If the benefit that would result from achieving the goal would outweigh the cost of the violence necessary, and if there is absolutely no other way but violence to achieve that goal, then violence is permissible.

You're probably going to ask me who judges when the benefit of a goal outweighs the cost of using violence. Again, that's an individual judgment call.


~Chrysanthemum~