> Okay. And the judge of this would also, presumably, be the person making the verdict on the overall goodness of the individual in question, yes?

Yes.

> > I hope that that's at least a little clearer. Keep prodding me if it isn't. ;)
>
> Nope, that's perfect. I get it now.

Yay!

>And also, I imagine, the person determining success or failure in this regard would be the person who is judging overall goodness as with the others, yes?

Yes.

> Quick note:
>
> > 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,
>
> I beg to differ. This definitely IS a scientific inquiry. Otherwise, what is it?

I tend to think of scientific inquiry as examining a topic using empirical, objective methods by which everyone can arrive at the same conclusion. (On examination, that isn't wholly accurate -- different theories are often plausible explanations for the same phenomena, at least when said phenomena aren't really well understood -- but I will account for that in a moment.) But I do think that, while we may be using scientific methods of inquiry and close examination of concepts and evidence, there is a set of fundamental subjective judgments at the root of deciding who is a good person (all of these things that I'm saying the person who is making the "good person" judgment also has to judge) that are, essentially, opinions. There are general standards of ethics, caring for others, morality, etc. that most people will hold, but when it comes down to it people won't always judge others the same way. I tend to think that in science, there is always eventually one "right" answer. There may be different, competing theories for a while, but when enough evidence is gathered and enough other phenomena are understood, there can only be one theory that best explains any given phenomenon. In contrast, people are not (generally, at least) objectively good or bad. There is no "right" answer in making such a distinction. If I think that Charles de Gaulle was a good person, but a vegan PETA member thinks that he acted unethically because he ate meat and therefore was a bad person, we aren't going to come to agreement on the matter -- and who's to say which of is objectively correct?

So I suppose that we could call this a scientific inquiry if we're talking about the methods used to arrive at a conclusion. But if we're talking about the kind of conclusion that we're reaching, I'm not sure that I would say that it is scientific.

~Chrysan"waiting for someone to tell me that de Gaulle was a vegetarian"themum~