The concept of a good person has always been a difficult one to grasp for me. I did once believe such a thing existed, but not as a title that held any level of permanency. Anyone can be a good person one moment, and yet in another — perhaps even one that very same day — they could be the very worst of people.
It would appear that — by the predominantly shared understanding of what a good person is — to qualify for this most esteemed title, one must have more good in them than bad, or have done more of the former than the latter in their current lifetime. But if this is the case, how could we mere humans ever convince ourselves that we possess the necessary instruments to measure such a thing?
For one, we would need an infallible memory. Without the ability to recall every decision of our lives, we would be unable to accurately calculate our "goodness." Secondly, we would need a point-system that attributed a number, or something to the same effect, to every possible action and non-action one could contemplate.
You save a baby from a burning building. +20 points. You stole from the cookie jar. - 3 points. What about; you sat down for two hours and cried when your grandfather died? + 5 points because you have compassion in your heart, or - 10 points because a truly good person would have been using that time to help others, or think of how best to do so?
Then there is the deeper aspect of it. For the measurement to be reliable, we would have to be honest enough with ourselves to know what drove us to do good in any given circumstance. Was it simply because you felt it was the right thing to do? I doubt it. Nothing is ever so simple. Was it so that you can see an improvement in the world around you to help you live more comfortably? Could it have been to help persuade yourself that you are a good person? Could it have been to try to convince others that you are a good person? Maybe it is simply fear of burning in an eternal pit of fire? They are all self-serving decisions, so should they really be categorized as good? Would they be worthy of reward or reduction in regards to points on the scoreboard of morality?
None of us can honestly say we are a good person, because none of us possess the aforementioned resources to complete the equation that would be necessary to determine so. So perhaps we shouldn't hold onto this concept any longer. It has become a weight that we no longer need burden ourselves with, and somewhat paradoxically, it limits our potential to do good by having us waste our time thinking about whether we are good people, rather than spending that time helping others.
So why not scrap this wasteful ideology and admit to ourselves that on a fundamental level, we are not good or bad people, but simply people? It all comes down to choice. The choices we make, and perhaps even moreso, the choices that we allow ourselves to see as available to us. It then would become apparent that a good person is simply a person who has made the conscious choice to try and be a force for good in this world. A choice that is available to anyone— at any time— for any reason.
We all have the potential to be a person who does good. Just as we all have the capacity to be one who does the opposite. Measuring your deeds might be a good source of inspiration to be the right type of person, in any given moment. But, if you truly want to be the best person you can be, then don't waste time questioning yourself. Just be that person.
