What Is a Good Man?

James said:
I think no one wants to encourage that in the army. I understand that, but to me the key aspect ? Most countries would have locked the guy up, or shot him.

But maybe that's why he was who was. He had the chance (eventually) to do it.
Click to expand...
Right. Many things had to come together to make it possible to play out the way it did.
 
Wyote said:
About what? I'm down. Start another thread.
Click to expand...
Thanks but that's kind of the point. You killed any hope of it. Not a bad thing. Just a thing.
 
James said:
You're the living breathing definition of being a good man
Click to expand...

It's too bad I'm such a potato. A kind warm potato.

BEC016918EFE5C8C6945E7E16ED95_h316_w628_m5_ciwPsyxMY.jpg
 
I think that from one perspective this could be a philosophical question to do with the nature of goodness but I am not well read in philosophy so I look to literature for my answers which I think is more about the subjective aspects of human experience than the philosophical approach.

When I think of this the first thing that comes to mind is Ford's novel "The Good Soldier". For Ford, one reason for why a good man exists is because others perceive the man to be good and choose to see the man as being good. They experience the goodness of the man, therefore the man is good.

Also comes to mind is Dr Rieux from Camus's "The Plague". Rieux is the doctor of the town and represents himself in action. There is a real limitation on insights given to the inner world of Rieux. But Rieux is dedicated to the good works of his career, which is helping sick people. I think that throughout the book, the sense is conveyed that Rieux is a "good man". It's very believable and it's easy to adore or worship Rieux as a "good man". I think that for Camus, a "good man" is represented through his persistent pattern of good actions against some sort of circumstance that is not ideal.

In Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita", the character depiction of Jesus claims that "There are no evil men on Earth". To me, that seems like the most profoundly "Jesus-like" idea I have ever encountered. Describing a "good man" is problematic, because it assumes a sort of shadow "evil man", it creates the category "evil" as necessarily existing in opposition to "good". I'm not sure that "evil" is a very constructive or adaptive approach to understanding human beings. It's fun... I'm just not sure it makes a lot of sense. In the same way, I'm not sure that "good man" makes a lot of sense. It's easy, and it conveys the reassuring sense that good people truly exist. But I tend to think that human beings are intrinsically morally grey. I tend to think that actions and their outcomes are good or bad, by some criteria you would decide on for judging those outcomes, not a man or person. That's just my personal beliefs about it.

Of course there are still human beings that I greatly admire, for their special achievements, for their dedication to improving the lives of human beings on Earth in some way... Beethoven, Joyce, Chaucer, Austen, Shakespeare... it's natural to admire a person.
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking about what the value of discriminating what a "good person" is and what a "bad person" is, what is the usefulness of it or purpose of it apart from its interest as a question, does developing an answer to this question have a practical application? The main value I can figure out of determining this is making decisions about who is trustworthy? There are also limitations of determining who is a "good" and who is a "bad" person.
 
Last edited:
I think it's tempting to answer this question as a wishlist checklist of all the things you want in a good partner ;), but as some have already said, being or seeming good is a matter of perspective. It's easier to come up with good qualities for a person in general. Someone can live their life thinking they are a good person, doing what they believe is right or good, but someone in their life or the world thinks the opposite. This is why the concept of good intentions is important. The things we do with good intentions may not always work out how others think it should, but it is important to recognize that a genuine interest in doing good was there, even if it's not in the way others expect.

To answer the OP, I still have a few traditional views about what it means to be a good man using a father figure as an example with a few caveats. I appreciate when a man is protective and caring, but not restrictive. I've had enough experiences of men who use protectiveness to repress, dominate or diminish someone so they feel weak. A protective person cares but also recognizes the strength and independence in those they care about. This person can also show emotional warmth and strength when it's appropriate.

I appreciate when someone, particularly a partner, is thoughtful and considerate. Thoughtful is a big one because for me this means someone who considers what is important to you as a person and tries, not necessarily to please you in every way, but will take the time to consider your feelings, concerns or interests, and will try to do things for you that make you feel good about yourself rather than expecting you to accommodate their needs and wants most of the time. I think there are still too many who think that being a good man is about being right about everything, being listened to and followed, without any reciprocation. It's also when someone doesn't view sensitivity as just a weakness.

A good man can be confident without having an excessive ego. He can listen and learn from others without diminishing who he is. And for anyone, a good person in general respects those they care about and those they may not know personally. In other words, you don't have to know anyone personally to care about what happens to others in the world. You don't have to be a saint. Just be genuinely nice.

But a good man also knows he can't please everyone, and that's not his role in life. In the end, a good man tries to live the best life he can without intentionally trying to hurt others or trying to take away from anyone else's importance or value. A good man does not have to be a star to be light in someone's life or eyes. Finally, I've always admired someone who has a desire to make sure everyone is ok and taken care off, someone who can put others first even when it's not always in their best interest.

Edit: I know this thread is about men, but of course any negative traits mentioned could be applied to women as well. So, it's not likely fair to expect men to be perfect more than women. In the end, each person has to decide for themselves what kind of person they want to be, regardless of what others expect or think. There are many ways to be good.
 
Last edited:
Gaze said:
To answer the OP, I still have a few traditional views about what it means to be a good man using a father figure as an example with a few caveats. I appreciate when a man is protective and caring, but not restrictive. I've had enough experiences of men who use protectiveness to repress, dominate or diminish someone so they feel weak. A protective person cares but also recognizes the strength and independence in those they care about. This person can also show emotional warmth and strength when it's appropriate.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the use of the phrase "father figure." I know that it is not a bad thing, but for those with a difficult childhood, people who grew up in an abusive home or without a father at all, this word bears negative connotations. One doesn't need to be a "father figure" to show those characteristics in his behaviour, man or woman. The phrase is merely enforcing a non-existent status within a family-like community.
 
Ginny said:
I don't agree with the use of the phrase "father figure." I know that it is not a bad thing, but for those with a difficult childhood, people who grew up in an abusive home or without a father at all, this word bears negative connotations. One doesn't need to be a "father figure" to show those characteristics in his behaviour, man or woman. The phrase is merely enforcing a non-existent status within a family-like community.
Click to expand...

But that's your personal view and interpretation, and not applicable to everyone. Each person was asked to give their own views on this. Our views don't have to match. Each of us have our own experiences of mothers or fathers. It's not fair to paint all father figures with negative connotations. If I had said mother figure, few would have a problem with that but someone else could come along and say, they had bad experiences with mother figures in their lives.

Just as a mother figure may have been a saving grace for one person, a father figure may have been a saving grace for another. You have a right to your view, but not everyone has to share it. It's not fair to impose a personal view on someone's personal experience. We are different people, and will see things through the lens of our own personal experience. And I think it's a huge disservice to perceive father figures only in negative terms when we clearly have so many great fathers here on our forum. So, father figure shouldn't have to be a dirty word if it means something good and positive in someone's life.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top