There’s an odd backwards moral reasoning to which our modern age seems particularly susceptible. Surely you’ve heard it:
Y does X. Y is a basically good person. Therefore, X must be okay.
You hear it from all sides of the cultural divide.
“Joe and Fred are married. They’re good people. How can you say that that kind of relationship is wrong?”
“Cindy does that. She’s a good person. So how can that be racist?”
Think back a bit, and you’ll see that a huge number of the casually-made moral arguments one hears these days boil down to this.
There are a couple big problems.
For starters, what exactly is a “good person”? Often this seems to be a category with as little meaning as “someone I like” or “someone who’s not obviously engaged in genocide or kitten torture at this moment”. And yet, the way the argument is deployed, once someone is determined to be a “basically good person”, every action that person takes in now “basically good”. It is as if each person is now a good or evil deity, and all the actions of the good deities are necessarily good because good deities can not do evil.
But of course, each person performs many actions. Surely not all the actions of “bad people” are bad and of “good people” are good, if only because “good people” and “bad people” at times do the same things.
A bit of this ties in with the issue of moral fashions. Sins which are currently in fashion, things “basically good people” do, seem like they can’t possibly be that bad. At the moment, you’re much more likely to know someone who’s had an abortion that someone who’s killed someone in a duel. Does that mean that dueling is worse than abortion? Well, not necessarily. At another time, one might have been much more likely to know a duelist or a slave owner than someone who’d had abortion. Those sins seemed normal and excusable. “Basically good people” did them. But the sins themselves have not changed as social standards have. Standards of “basically good”, of social acceptability, have changed, but moral laws have not. (And for those with an affection for the past: Just because dueling and slave owning were done in distant and more picturesque times does not mean that they weren’t just as painful and evil as more modern sins.)
I think underlying much of the urge to identify “basically good people” and excuse their actions from being any serious kind of sin is that by “basically good people” we tend to mean “people like me”. By ruling that the actions of “basically good people” can’t be all that wrong, we implicitly say that our own actions can’t be all that wrong. We restrict sin, you know, bad sin, to being something done by “people not like me”. Like Nazis, everyone’s favorite example of sin. We all know that’s “evil”. And if that’s evil, and I’m not a Nazi, then surely whatever I do can’t be evil, right?
What we need to realize is that people themselves are not good or evil. Actions are. You and I do evil things at times. People like us do evil things. Evil is not something foreign that only people in some other category from us do. It is something that all of us are tempted to and which we all must fight. Unless people realize that evil exists, and that people like them do it, they cannot successfully fight it.
“We restrict sin, you know, bad sin, to being something done by “people not like me”. Like Nazis, everyone’s favorite example of sin. We all know that’s “evil”. And if that’s evil, and I’m not a Nazi, then surely whatever I do can’t be evil, right? -”
The SS often prided themselves, at least before the War, in that they were not like the swinish, brutal SA. Many of the SS officers were highly educated and they rejected the boorish and clumsy tactics of the SA. Of course their dire sins were rather more scarlet since they had less excuse for them than those they looked down upon. Accurate self assessment is usually difficult and accurately assessing groups we belong to, and love, only slightly less difficult.
In one of the Lincoln Douglas debates Douglas noted that some of the finest people in the country owned slaves. Perfectly true, and perfectly irrelevant in regard to the morality of slavery.
One probable contributing factor in this twisted notion of “basically good people” is the virtual canonization of Anne Frank’s “Diary of a Young Girl,” particularly the passage written less than three weeks before the family’s betrayal and arrest by the SD: “I keep my ideals, because in spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart.”
I’ve always doubted that this opinion survived to the end of Anne’s journey at Bergen-Belsen. While typical, understandable, and to a limited extent excusable in a middle-class adolescent, it is inexcusable when held by anyone pretending to rational adulthood. But that is our problem, is it not? We are in many ways immured in a culture whose direction has been allowed to devolve onto an elitist tribe of arrested adolescents — the sophomoronocracy that now governs us and tells us what we must do and believe.
Hmm… you’re on the right track but still a little off I think. Let’s back up a minute.
What’s an example of this?
That alone disproves the thesis. Just consider George Zimmerman. He really did just about every thing against racism that a person in modern society could, yet how were things read when he was arrested? Evil… racist… etc.
The fact of the matter is, that actions are excused by a person is not something we see today. Rather I think actions AND people are excused by the cause (or movement, think political not philosophical in this case). Things and people that help what’s seen as “a good cause” are thus good actions and people. Anyone and anything which doesn’t help said cause or helps a cause seen as “bad” are thus bad.
So let’s return to the conclusion:
You’re… partially right. First of all, I think your statement assumes a lot more self-reflection than goes on with a lot of people. Second, the principle is more one of “I’m not as bad as…”. I’ve seen plenty that believe in evil and doing bad things, but comparisons are always made to extremes. One of the downsides of the internet is that it’s made all of us a lot more susceptible to the pharisee’s syndrome when praying with the tax collector. We might admit we are bad, “but we’re not as bad as [them over there].” What we do may be a little fishy, “but at least we didn’t kill a guy” (or worse: be racist).
In other words, I think you have the cause/effect somewhat backwards. People don’t see actions as good because good people do them. They see actions (and people) as WORSE and then conclude that other people and actions must be good because they’re not that bad. So just as we all seem poor when compared to Bill Gates, everyone seems like saints when compared to Hitler or Stalin.
I hear you, Nate, but still agree with Darwin. The dominant psychology at work is “I’m a good person; I do or want to do X; therefore X must be ok.” I see it every day.
And I think the basic problem is pride. People cannot bear to think of themselves as fallen sinners.
Well of course it’s pride. It’s been pride since day 8. 😉
But I also think that for a lot of people, the very meaning of “sin” and “sinner” has been lost. Thus things like the ‘moral event horizon’ and such in popular culture.
But sin no longer exists in our world; there are only good choices and less good choices. To condemn the act is to condemn the person; and if the person is perceived as a good person, then to condemn the act is to condemn the good person. And, of course, we should not judge….anything.
This is where our relativist culture has taken us.
Nate,
Just consider George Zimmerman. He really did just about every thing against racism that a person in modern society could, yet how were things read when he was arrested? Evil… racist… etc.
Actually, in some ways, I think that’s a good example. It seemed like in the wider media everyone wanted to go to one of two extremes: Either Zimmerman was a hero faced with a drug crazed thug, or Zimmerman was a racist out hunting darkies and Martin was an innocent little child we’d never start a fight. Few people seemed able to land in between.
Everyone knows the bit from Screwtape Proposes a Toast, right?
The GZ story is the opposite of the “basically good . . . ” issue.
The Prez, AG and their media cheerleaders needed a distraction to energize black, racist voters.
So, they distorted, fabricated, and omited, as necessary, to taint GZ as the first Hispanic racist.
PS: the MSM and liberals hate FOXNEWS for the same reasons that high school cheerleaders hate the girl that isn’t “sleeping with” the entire football team.
And to be clear: the myth is not that everyone is basically good. It’s that “people like me” or “people I like” are basically good. The flip side of that is to believe that “evil” is not something that everyone does when they sin, but rather something that only “bad people” do. People who are pretty much completely evil.
Ernst,
Exactly.
Yes, but aren’t we arguing over HOW people decided to sort him in either camp? 😉
Oh ok. Well that makes a bit more sense, though I still think the thought needs more refinement. After all, in the Zimmerman case, George was “most like” the people who considered him a demon while “least like” those who considered him an angel. (oversimplifying, to be honest, I saw a wide variety of coverage)
So again, we must ask how these things are sorted. I think you’re selling short the phenomenon pointed out by Jonah here. It’s almost consequentialism cranked up to 11 (thousand): What is good for good causes is thus good itself.
It’s the consequence of “the personal is political”. That is, politics drives out the personal, eventually personhood itself.
I think, still a lot to be hashed out IMHO.
This calls to mind Pelagianism, which is based on the same notion, and so that in that sense, the heresy is not so modern.
It is also one of the reasons Islam seems, on the surface at least, a much more appealing religion than Christianity. Whereas the latter faith (thanks to the Greek philosophy it incorporated) wraps itself up into knots over what it means to be good, and to live a good life, classical Islam takes a much more basic approach: as long as one follows a small set of rules rigorously, one is indeed good enough to be assured of heaven.
I suspect that in future generations, Islamic apologists will blame the latter-day obsession with violent martyrdom blowing up those who are lesser or tainted as having been caused by excessive proximity to angst-ridden Christians who for the most part can never know how they stand with God, so that Christianity is to be blamed for all that violence. Surely, liberals and secularists the world over will cheer that notion. It will all be a lie of course, but when one is talking about Islam (and secularism and liberalism), that can hardly be avoided.
Isaiah 64:6 “We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy cloth. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.”
Jeremiah17:9-10) “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings.”
Romans 3:10-12: “As it is written: ‘There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one.'”
Ephesians 2:1-3 “You were dead through the trespasses and sins in which you once lived, following the course of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work among those who are disobedient. All of us once lived among them in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of flesh and senses, and we were by nature children of wrath, like everyone else.”
Mark 10:18 “Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. ‘”
—–
This idea that we human beings are good has got to be smashed. Left to our own devices, without the grace of God, we are utterly depraved and we all deserve to burn in hell forever and ever. It is only because of our Blessed Lord’s Sacrifice on the Cross that we do not get what we deserve. We all – myself most of all – fall down on our knees in the Confessional begging for mercy on our pitiful souls, because by our own individual sins we have put the nails in Jesus’ hands and feet, and thrust the spear in His side.
Good people? With God’s grace there aren’t any.
Correction to last sentence. Change
“Good people? With God’s grace there aren’t any.”
to
“Good people? Without God’s grace there aren’t any.”
Thanks!
I do not have such a dim view of humanity Paul. People are neither all good nor all evil, but a bundle of choices that determine their ultimate fate. There is much good done by people on this planet each day, including among those who do not have the light of Christ, just as there is much evil done each day. I share the view of humanity expressed by Lincoln in my favorite passage of his many speeches:
“These communities, by their representatives in old Independence Hall, said to the whole world of men: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to His creatures. [Applause.] Yes, gentlemen, to all His creatures, to the whole great family of man. In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on, and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows. They grasped not only the whole race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized upon the farthest posterity. They erected a beacon to guide their children and their children’s children, and the countless myriads who should inhabit the earth in other ages. Wise statesmen as they were, they knew the tendency of prosperity to breed tyrants, and so they established these great self-evident truths, that when in the distant future some man, some faction, some interest, should set up the doctrine that none but rich men, or none but white men, were entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, their posterity might look up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew the battle which their fathers began — so that truth, and justice, and mercy, and all the humane and Christian virtues might not be extinguished from the land; so that no man would hereafter dare to limit and circumscribe the great principles on which the temple of liberty was being built.”
Man has much to be ashamed of, but much also to be proud of. God deems us worthy to share His love, and even died for us. We cannot be completely worthless creatures if the Lord of the Universe lavishes such care upon us.
But I also think that for a lot of people, the very meaning of “sin” and “sinner” has been lost. Thus things like the ‘moral event horizon’ and such in popular culture.
The MEH is a rather good dramatic tool– X does Y so that the cheap seats know, unequivocally, that the character is bad. It symbolizes that they’ve gone all the way.
Poking at it, could it be said that a large part of the problem is people taking dramatic tools and using them as accurate representations?
Everyone is the star of their own private story– some people just forget the scenes they put on the cuttingroom floor.
To Paul’s list of scriptures, I would add the parable of the widow’s mite that surpasses the gifts of the rich, the virtuous tax collector, the good thief of the Crucifixion, the forgiven adultress, the Prodigal Son, Lazarus, and the repeated admonition that the last will be first (and vice versa) and many others. Christianity is indeed replete with doubt and uncertainty as to who is and is not worthy.
Interestingly, despite the numerous Old Testament teachings with a similar theme, the ne plus ultra Jewish scholar Maimonedes, who lived in an Islamic society, took a decidedly Muslim approach in quantifying worthiness (in the sense that he considered worthiness to be quantifiable). The number of rules he specified (613) is considerably larger than the five pillars Muslims need to navigate, but both criteria are far more definitive than Christianity when it comes to knowing who is and is not good enough.
Conversely, Freud, another Jewish scholar, but one steeped in the Catholic culture of Vienna, gave us a philosophy that has more angst and self-recrimination than a Pietist confessor’s manual (and far less in the way of party-on conviviality, which is saying something).
@Foxfier – Beautifully put. (btw, I find it funny I keep running into you all over the web… like according to hoyt… john c wright… you have good tastes :D)
Bravo, PWP!
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, teach us!
See the story of the publican (tax collector) and the pharisee (holy man).
“Blessed are the poor in spirit . . .”
“No one is good except God alone . . . ” See Matt. 19:16-30; Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:19.
Jesus says that, in addition to obeying all the Commandments, we must sell your wealth and personally give the money to the poor, not to the state; then we must take up our crosses and follow Him. The disciples were completely amazed and asked Jesus, “Who, then, can be saved?” To which Jesus answered, “This is impossible for man, but for God everything is possible.” (Matt. 19: 16-26; Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:18-30).
Folks,
I understand Donald’s point. However, I know what I did in my life, and I know perfectly well what I deserve. Thank God for Confession and Penance. If, however, I have done anything good, then that is only because of God’s grace. No one without God’s grace is worthy because ultimately only One Person is worthy – the man Christ Jesus. That doesn’t mean we sit and flagellate ourselves in eternal remorse, bewailing and bemoaning our sad fate as unworthy creatures. It means rather that we take up our cross and follow Him, and that we do so joyfully NOT because we are good (we aren’t) but because He is good and He so loved us in spite of our unworthiness that He died on that Cross to save our souls from the fires of hell.
@Paul & Donald
I think there’s truth to both of you, perhaps a parable of a seed there.
Any man can be good, there is a spark of the Creator within him after all, like a beautiful flower is waiting within a seed. But this side of the veil, there is naught for planting of that seed but rocky ground and fetid soil, such that flowers never bloom on their own but grow into choking weeds.
It takes the care and tending of the Gardner to make the soil good, clear the rocks, pull the weeds and do everything else He can to ensure that the seed becomes the most beautiful flower it can ever be. You might see the bud of a bloom on an untended plant, or even the shriveled form here and there. These are but small reminders of the glory and beauty that can be found out there, but it takes the work of the Gardner to get the full majesty and color to come forth.
So I would say, there is some good in people, but it takes God for us to be the best that we can be.
And if He helps us be our best, well maybe we’ll get others to be just a little better.
“You will know them by what they do.”
[…] Public Discourse No One Wants to Admit there’s a War on Christians – John L. Allen Jr. Basically Good People: The Great Modern Heresy – DarwinCatholic, TACth Oversimplifying Archbishop Óscar Romero – Richard Antall, […]
Nate’s articulation seems closer to my experience.
There is a strong sense in the West of “good enough is good enough.”
I can’t remember the last time that I talked intimately with someone and they didn’t acknowledge their faults. In a post Freudian age, I’m not sure that there is a lot of room for rampant egoism. Rather, there is schizophrenic existence at work in which it is both desirable to be publicly bold and privately vulnerable.
Senses of right and wrong are determined in degrees, not absolutes.
I know a guy who beats himself up regularly for having cheated on his wife when she was eight months pregnant but, now that his kids are off to college, he doesn’t think anything is wrong with going to strip clubs. Same impulse, similar results, completely different assessment of how wrong the act is.
Taking that over to the culture as a whole, we recognize ourselves as being flawed and, so, similarly culpable acts put those people on the same plane as us. Since we can’t conceive of a God who would doom “everybody,” we figure that wrong acts that are on our plane are not a big deal and acts that aren’t are a bigger deal.
So the guy who cheated on his wife during her pregnancy all those years ago is truly concerned – not enough to return to the Church but concerned nonetheless – that that aged sin is a deal breaker. However, all of the strip clubs isn’t a big deal… He’s not a “good guy” because of what he did back then but, if he hadn’t done that, he would be “good enough” and, well, “good enough is good enough for salvation” because God is merciful.
I agree with Nate too that “everyone is the star of their own private story– some people just forget the scenes they put on the cuttingroom floor” is one of the most accurate observations I’ve read.
A good sacramental confession will wipe clean all sins. Take a half hour on Saturday; unload the burden, receive Christ’s absolution, and do your penance.
Christ did not intend for us to dwell on sin. He died to overcome the spirit of this world and give us life everlasting.
Oh, and it would be great to thank the gracious priest who selflessly sacrifices his life to stand “in personam Christi” to listen to your confession and bestow upon you God’s absolution. There is no more freeing act than Confession to help one move on with one’s life. And the Church is always glad to see you even if you have not been back to Confession in 35 years.
Excellent advice Sharon and something I’ve shared with him in the past. It has been a while so you inspire me to call.
One of the things I’ve noticed about confession is how different it is from one priest to the next. I prefer those who acknowledge the sin and “dig deep.” That helps me firm up my resolution “to avoid the near occasion of sin.” I’ve had some priests echo what we are talking about here, sort of a “don’t be too hard on yourself, everybody makes mistakes but it is good that you are here.” The sins are wiped away of course but the sacrament has less “punch” – if you will… for me anyway.
It seemed like in the wider media everyone wanted to go to one of two extremes: Either Zimmerman was a hero faced with a drug crazed thug, or Zimmerman was a racist out hunting darkies and Martin was an innocent little child we’d never start a fight. Few people seemed able to land in between.
Which wider media? Did Sean Hannity offer that view? As far as I can recall, the only defenders of Zimmerman with an established reputation were Alan Dershowitz and Jeralyn Merritt. Neither is part of the media and neither assessed Zimmerman as a hero or a thug.
After all, in the Zimmerman case, George was “most like” the people who considered him a demon while “least like” those who considered him an angel.
Zimmerman defended himself with a licensed pistol, participated in a neighborhood watch program, worked for an insurance agency, was married to a beautician, lived in an inelegant suburban development (with a gate!), and wasted someone who would commonly be on the client list of a social worker. I will wager very few Zimmerman haters looked at him and saw themselves.
He and his wife are both fat, her makeup is unsubtle, his father is retired military (Sgt. Major, I believe), his mother is an athletic coach. Zimmerman was not part of those Thomas Sowell called “the anointed”. He is everyman, and liberals do not care for everyman.
I think underlying much of the urge to identify “basically good people” and excuse their actions from being any serious kind of sin is that by “basically good people” we tend to mean “people like me”.
You have not emphasized the degree to which people value agreeable social interaction or get their moral understanding from convention, or are influenced by their aversions. They do not necessarily mean “people like me”, but “people who entertain me”, “people who put me at ease”, &c. I could have introduced you to a woman who had from her late 40s a pronounced fondness for the company of homosexual men. She also did not care for her father, her brother, her husband, or the older of her brothers-in-law. Her dealings with her sons were abrasive too. She trashed most of her friends’ husbands as well. I think the two sets of attitudes have a functional relation.
Matthew 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’”
—–
Being a good person doesn’t get anyone into Heaven.
You have not emphasized the degree to which people value agreeable social interaction
Well, thank goodness you don’t have THAT problem.
That is exactly right Paul and the reason – at least to my mind – that “good enough is good enough” is so awful. By reinforcing the idea that not doing really terrible things – because I think that is what people mean when they say that someone is a “good” person – means that, if there is an afterlife, we’ll be saved.
I think that some of Pope Francis’ teaching is being used to reinforce this idea and that concerns me. His affirmation of God’s mercy and his concentration on the pastoral roles of the hierarchy are being interpreted by people that I know as “you’ll be OK. It is all those judgmental folks that are in trouble… and the really bad people of course.”
We know this is a road to hell but do our social justice sisters and brothers – the ones who are earning their way to heaven by acts of charity? What about the “spiritual” Vatican II crowd?
Acknowleding that “No man is good, no not one” includes us is absolutely essential to being disposed to cry out for His mercy and saving Grace. “Good enough is good enough” isn’t good enough because it can’t be because NO good act or combination of acts can be good enough.
Please correct me if I’ve got this wrong or am missing something.
Another way of saying “basically good” is “decent,” and decency is a social or civic virtue, not a moral one.
For example, I’d rather have a quiet, keep to themselves couple like Joe and Fred for neighbors than a couple of swingers like Dick and Jane with their “parties” going on every weekend all summer long.
Art,
Which wider media?
By “wider” I intended to include not just the mainstream media but the informal (mostly online) punditry. I didn’t bother keeping links, but I read a number of pieces on conservative blogs of the more exuberant sort insisting that Zimmerman was a model for all.
I think the reality doubtless lay in between.
You have not emphasized the degree to which people value agreeable social interaction or get their moral understanding from convention, or are influenced by their aversions.
To the extent that people identify with and like people who are not like them, then sure. Though unless people dislike themselves, I think they in general like people whom they perceive as like themselves in whatever aspects they consider most important.
Nate-
well, I did end up over at your place, so of course.
As an almost Catholic (in RCIA) I though that people, while “basically good” are fallen and if anything lean towards sin/sinning.
I had never even heard this ” ‘basically good person’ is the apology for bad behavior” argument before.
I had heard that ‘people are basically good but every culture has its own ways and who am I/are we/are you/ is anyone to judge someone else’s behavior – that’s G-D’s purview – argument. The moral relativity position. But never this action defined by my opinion of the actor argument.
So if someone is “basically bad” then all their actions are naturally tainted and evil. Pretty lame if you ask me.
“I’m basically a good person” is actually a pretty sorry admission.
To me it means “I’m not a killer or bank robber or child molester- but I feel free to do all the stuff ‘everybody does’ like cheat on my taxes, use others for my own pleasure, cheat my employees (or employers for that matter).”
This is hardly a character reference.
A companion phrase to “I’m a good person” that drives me nuts is “I’ve got a right to be happy” often used in reference to divorcing a loyal but now middle-aged wife.
Anyone convinced he IS a good person (even non-Catholic) might avail himself of a guide to making an examination of conscience — something I usually find depressing & educational.
What does the Lord require of you? To love mercy, do justly, & walk humbly with your God. POWERFUL STUFF for daily living. Requires God’s empowering grace & strong knowledge & application of His word to accomplish. But a great short hand method of determining what is “good” in our individual lives & knowing when we are pleasing to God. Are w showing love of God’s mercy toward ourselves & others? If not, repent & ask for God’s help–He will run to our aide & give us the wisdom & ability to do better! Are our actions just? If not, repent & ask for God’s help–He will run to our aide & give us wisdom & ability to be just. Are we showing proper humility in our thoughts & actions? If not, repent & ask for God’s help–He will come to our aide as He has promised & through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit & the resurrection power of His Son (who conquered Death, Hell, & the Grave) –He will enable us to be properly humble. What an AWESOME God we serve!! Hallelujah!!
Thanks for addressing this issue of: “but s/he/I am / is a ‘good’ person” topic, which is just a rationalization for sin and sinful actions/ behavior. Recently, (I can’t remember who or where) addressed this topic by asking the question, “You (s/he) might be a “good” person but are you/ s/he HOLY?” According to Vatican II, we ALL are called to “Universal HOLINESS”, which is the avoidance of sinful behavior. I also think this heresy of : “but I /s/he/ is a ‘good’ person” relates to our “politically correct” culture where everyone is afraid to name sin for fear of being accused of being “judgmental”, “racist”, homophobic”, etc…. but that is a topic for another blog.