Who is of more merit? (examples provided)

Note: OP was completely changed in order to make the topic more clear. Posters up through McGeezer on Page 1 are referring to a different post, thank you and also may you live long in prosper. - Meinhard1

What's more integral to a persons worth: being a good person internally or that your existence ultimately benefits humanity. These two are not mutually exclusive but they can be... and in order to accurately compare these traits they must be isolated.

Who do you consider to be the "better" person:

Person 1 - The wise hermit who for the sake of the argument is the embodiment of all good inner traits (whatever you consider these to be) but will ultimately not make an impact on the world.

Person 2 - An inwardly immoral socalite. His inner traits are negative, every damn one of them. However over the course of his life this persons' actions have a positive impact on the world.

Both these people are fantastical and could not exist in real life. They exist only for the sake of this topic because I created them.

I'm too lazy to read that text, so I pick the first one.

The first one is nicer but the second one is more likely to succeed in life. I still pick the first one.

I'm too lazy to read that text, so I pick the first one.

Melpoe

What makes the first person 'remarkable'? It sounds like you are roughly comparing introversion to extroversion, but with the twist that the introverted individual is more sympathetic towards others. cybrcatter

Person 1 has lots of "good" traits but is not very sociable and ultimately slips through life without making a large social impact. Person 2 is has less "good" traits but he's very socially desirable, has a family and makes a much larger impact on the world than person 1.

In all honesty I don't know what you're asking. Which one is "better"? Both can be good people of equal merit, they're just different personality types on opposite sides of the spectrum.

In all honesty I don't know what you're asking. Which one is "better"? Both can be good people of equal merit, they're just different personality types on opposite sides of the spectrum.

Suzy_Q_Kazoo

[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]What makes the first person 'remarkable'? It sounds like you are roughly comparing introversion to extroversion, but with the twist that the introverted individual is more sympathetic towards others. Meinhard1

Person 1 has lots of "good" traits but is not very sociable and ultimately slips through life without making a large social impact. Person 2 is has less "good" traits but he's very socially desirable, has a family and makes a much larger impact on the world than person 1.

I put they were both equal, as they both contribute to the world in their own way. While the 2nd person may touch more people with simplistic love, the first person spreads profound thoughts which may or may not cause progress in the world around him.

I think that the first person is getting more votes because he is very similar to how many Gamespot users see themelves. He is an introvert, just like the majority of forumites.

Maybe I could have phrased this question better... They are different personality types, yes... maybe that's a flaw in my presentation of this point. But I'm focusing on the strengths and weaknesses that I try to illustrate in my examples. Basically is it better for a being to be virtuous, broad thinking, and intelligent (or whatever traits you consider positive) or to actually make an impact on the world... Person 1 has "good" inner traits but isn't sociable and ultimately doesn't make a huge difference on the world. Person 2 is someone whom many would not consider to be as inwardly moral but is much more charming, sociable and therefore likable than person 1 and will therefore make a bigger impact on the world. He will have lots of friends and raise a family and perhaps ultimately do the most good.Meinhard1

I don't know if that makes much sense, but oh well :P

Edit: I thinkcybrcatter's response is pretty accurate in terms of the gist I'm getting from the OP as well though.

Ugh... I pretty much agree with the criticisms of this topic, or at least the examples I provided.

Suzy_Q is correct in observing that person 1 might actually make a bigger impact in terms of the quality of his actions/interactions.

And cybrcatter seems to have picked up on how my OP is biased towards introversion... this wasn't intentional - I wanted it to be balanced. Perhaps I shouldn't deal with specifics if I try this again.

Introverted vs Extroversion, Empathy vs Apathy, Quantity vs Quality... goddamn, none of these were intended topics of discussion. :P

I didn't want to deal with abstractions but I guess I'll have to since examples can get messy.

Thanks both of you for your honest feedback. Check out my new OP. Hopefully it you find it less confusing.

1. An intelligent, ethical, sympathetic individual. He's willing to ask questions about the world around him. He's also broad minded and a critical thinker.

But the catch is that he's not a very social being. This person is not very quick witted, he likes to think about things deeply andHe's close to his parents, siblings and perhaps a couple actual friends but that's about it. He does impact people through his job, he's a male nurse, but only through being good at his job and a generally kind individual. So in general his actual impact on the world is pretty small although he's an ethical, responsible and intelligent individual.

2. Someone who loved by many. He has a wide circle of friends, and a family (a wife and three kids) whom he treats very well. For the sake of the argument we'll say that he has a similar job as person one - he works with people.

The catch is that while this person this person is sociably and quick witted he's not a particularlybroad or deep thinker. Although he is loved by many it's mostly for his wit, charm and good looks; he's not very thoughtful, he doesn't look much beyond himself and generally acts the moment. He's not a bad person by any means but again he's generally self serving and shallow minded.

Both these people are of similar economic status - the main difference is that one is a pretty remarkable person on the inside but who isn't very "witty" or sociable and ultimately won't make a huge external impact on the world while the other is a pretty inwardly unremarkable person (or at least a simple person) but his outward impact on the world is substantial - his peers like him, he has a family.

Of course NEITHER person is ideal - both people have a huge deficit - I'm try to show either extreme and I'm asking you which is better.

I realize my examples might not be ideal but they should serve at least illustrate what I am talking about.

Meinhard1

I don't like to think of it as who is BETTER. Instead, I think of it in terms as who is of greater merit, who is actually worth more to society in general.

In that sense, the second guy wins hands down.

He's simply going to touch more lives in a positive way simply by being more sociable. He might not have "deep thoughts" or anything. But the first guy might as well not have deep thoughts either. He could be brilliant as hell, but if he's just keeping that brilliance bottled up inside then what's the point?

[QUOTE="Meinhard1"]

1. An intelligent, ethical, sympathetic individual. He's willing to ask questions about the world around him. He's also broad minded and a critical thinker.

But the catch is that he's not a very social being. This person is not very quick witted, he likes to think about things deeply andHe's close to his parents, siblings and perhaps a couple actual friends but that's about it. He does impact people through his job, he's a male nurse, but only through being good at his job and a generally kind individual. So in general his actual impact on the world is pretty small although he's an ethical, responsible and intelligent individual.

2. Someone who loved by many. He has a wide circle of friends, and a family (a wife and three kids) whom he treats very well. For the sake of the argument we'll say that he has a similar job as person one - he works with people.

The catch is that while this person this person is sociably and quick witted he's not a particularlybroad or deep thinker. Although he is loved by many it's mostly for his wit, charm and good looks; he's not very thoughtful, he doesn't look much beyond himself and generally acts the moment. He's not a bad person by any means but again he's generally self serving and shallow minded.

Both these people are of similar economic status - the main difference is that one is a pretty remarkable person on the inside but who isn't very "witty" or sociable and ultimately won't make a huge external impact on the world while the other is a pretty inwardly unremarkable person (or at least a simple person) but his outward impact on the world is substantial - his peers like him, he has a family.

Of course NEITHER person is ideal - both people have a huge deficit - I'm try to show either extreme and I'm asking you which is better.

I realize my examples might not be ideal but they should serve at least illustrate what I am talking about.

MrGeezer

I don't like to think of it as who is BETTER. Instead, I think of it in terms as who is of greater merit, who is actually worth more to society in general.

In that sense, the second guy wins hands down.

He's simply going to touch more lives in a positive way simply by being more sociable. He might not have "deep thoughts" or anything. But the first guy might as well not have deep thoughts either. He could be brilliant as hell, but if he's just keeping that brilliance bottled up inside then what's the point?

So you see merit as a measurement of ones contributions to society? I can respect that and might even agree. The flip-side is that "merit" could refer to one's inherent "goodness" or how ethically, intelligently, and/or responsibly one lives his life rather than the magnitude of ones' accomplishments. Meinhard1

You could be, internally, a "better" person than Jesus Christ.

But if you don't actually DO ANYTHING with that goodness, then who gives a ****?

[QUOTE="Meinhard1"]So you see merit as a measurement of ones contributions to society? I can respect that and might even agree. The flip-side is that "merit" could refer to one's inherent "goodness" or how ethically, intelligently, and/or responsibly one lives his life rather than the magnitude of ones' accomplishments. MrGeezer

You could be, internally, a "better" person than Jesus Christ.

But if you don't actually DO ANYTHING with that goodness, then who gives a ****?

Well I might have more respect for the person who is better than Jesus Christ since he has managed to attain such a high level of character. Meinhard1

But how would you even KNOW that he's such a great person if he keeps all that goodness bottled up inside him, only to be lost when he goes to the grave?

There are some hobos who are truly wonderful people. Doesn't really affect me though, if I avoid getting to know them because they're dirty and they stink.I guarantee you that there are some AWESOME people sleeping in cardboard boxes and being marginalized by society. I'm talking truly Great People. But...they are probably going to die in an alley alone, with no one caring. All their wisdom will be lost, so what did their great wisdom really matter?

[QUOTE="Meinhard1"]Well I might have more respect for the person who is better than Jesus Christ since he has managed to attain such a high level of character. MrGeezer

But how would you even KNOW that he's such a great person if he keeps all that goodness bottled up inside him, only to be lost when he goes to the grave?

There are some hobos who are truly wonderful people. Doesn't really affect me though, if I avoid getting to know them because they're dirty and they stink.I guarantee you that there are some AWESOME people sleeping in cardboard boxes and being marginalized by society. I'm talking truly Great People. But...they are probably going to die in an alley alone, with no one caring. All their wisdom will be lost, so what did their great wisdom really matter?

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="Meinhard1"]Well I might have more respect for the person who is better than Jesus Christ since he has managed to attain such a high level of character. Meinhard1

But how would you even KNOW that he's such a great person if he keeps all that goodness bottled up inside him, only to be lost when he goes to the grave?

There are some hobos who are truly wonderful people. Doesn't really affect me though, if I avoid getting to know them because they're dirty and they stink.I guarantee you that there are some AWESOME people sleeping in cardboard boxes and being marginalized by society. I'm talking truly Great People. But...they are probably going to die in an alley alone, with no one caring. All their wisdom will be lost, so what did their great wisdom really matter?

[QUOTE="Meinhard1"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

But how would you even KNOW that he's such a great person if he keeps all that goodness bottled up inside him, only to be lost when he goes to the grave?

There are some hobos who are truly wonderful people. Doesn't really affect me though, if I avoid getting to know them because they're dirty and they stink.I guarantee you that there are some AWESOME people sleeping in cardboard boxes and being marginalized by society. I'm talking truly Great People. But...they are probably going to die in an alley alone, with no one caring. All their wisdom will be lost, so what did their great wisdom really matter?

xaos

That's kind of what I was thinking. Someone whose character is truly good has at least someone who knows his character was good, because it brought forth good fruit. How good can someone be if he's never done anything for another person that caused that person to recognize his alleged goodness?

"Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit." (Matthew 12:33)

Again I'd putting good character over practical worth - an idea that is often extolled in our society however illogical. Meinhard1

Why?

I mean, anyone can THINK of themselves as good people.

Anyone can do whatever the hell they want to, and then justify in their own minds that they really are good people.

Even thieves, murderers, and rapists often like to think about themselves in such a way. But again...the thief can comfort himself to his heart's delight while he's serving a 10 year sentence for armed robbery. Most people, good or bad, like to maintain the illusion that they REALLY AREN'T BAD. At least, from my very limited and unscientific anecdotal evidence. Who deliberately tries to convince themselves that they are ****?

People don't like to think of themselves as bad, they like to justify what they're gonna do anyway. Literally ANYONE can do that ****. That's a situation in which a person's inherent goodness is completely and utterly internalized, and ONLY recognized by the person who already has a biased agenda to think that he/she is "good". Why would THAT PERSON be a more fair judge of his/her "goodness" than the other people who have to interact with that person on a daily basis?

Look...if I were going to be one of those two types of people, I'd be the former. I'd be the "good" loner who doesn't really have any effect on people and doesn't have any friends. I'm simply not at all ****ing good with people. That doesn't necessarily make me a BAD person, and I've certainly met worse people than me who have more of a positive impact in other people's lives. But it boils down to this...I can think that I'm a good ****ing person if it helps me to sleep at night. But as far as my IMPACT on society...as far as the POSITIVE influence that I have on people...that **** just ain't there. I try not to hurt people, but I'm not exactly helping anyone either. I can spend all night thinking "deep thoughts", but none of that is worth a flying **** if I am either selfish or lonely enough to let those deep thoughts enter my mind and my mind ALONE.

If those thoughts were worth ANYTHING, then don't I sort of become sort of a dip**** for letting those thoughts pile up in my head and then die without anyone taking advantage of them? Isn't that just a little bit selfish? To keep all of my goodness internalized where I'm the ONLY one who has access to it?

Suppose I really DO have some deep and wonderful thoughts. How good of a person can I be if I decide to keep all of that wonderful **** to myself, and don't let anyone have access to it? Isn't that a bit like a king demanding to be buried with his gold? Whatever value I had, ALL of that dies when I go to the grave, unless I choose to share it with someone else.

[QUOTE="Meinhard1"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

But how would you even KNOW that he's such a great person if he keeps all that goodness bottled up inside him, only to be lost when he goes to the grave?

There are some hobos who are truly wonderful people. Doesn't really affect me though, if I avoid getting to know them because they're dirty and they stink.I guarantee you that there are some AWESOME people sleeping in cardboard boxes and being marginalized by society. I'm talking truly Great People. But...they are probably going to die in an alley alone, with no one caring. All their wisdom will be lost, so what did their great wisdom really matter?

xaos

I like McGeezers' example of the good hobo so are use that. He is not being self-aggrandizing, rather perhaps he is not very organized or has some physical or mentaldisability.

If a strong tree made of invincible wood is never torn from its roots and studied by scientists that doesn't detract from the inherent awesomeness of this remarkable life-form.

A good hobo or a virtuous hermit is not pointless because they exist as a being-in-itself. Furthermore "innate goodness" is also a characteristic that is admirable in the TV talk show host and remains admirable in the marginalized Jesus-eque hobo.

You could argue that this "innate goodness" is of no use to society and therefore of little merit but that doesn't mean that it is pointless... what is society but a bunch of people - beings-in-themselves whom (I would argue) possess varying levels of admirableness based not only their actions but their character as well.

@ Gabu - This confusion might be my fault... But when looking at this topic when applied practically the fact is that some good people are marginalized / unable do to great good. Of course this doesn't apply to my example of the hermit, but it does apply to hobos and other people who for some reason are unable to do good. I like that you bring theology into this... there's also that parable about the coins - where one is rewarded based proportion of what their given to what they produce. Perhaps theologically both my original examples would be damned ( or at least not look on favorabley by God)... the hermit has the ability to do good but doesn't. My other example does works that produce good but for the wrong motives. However (I am getting repetitive I know) the hobo might have done some good deeds - just very small one's that don't have a huge impact on society

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Meinhard1"] I don't disagree with your logic. But still I might profess greater respect for these wonderful Jesus-esque hobos even though I have never met them and never will and although their "goodness" will never effect me (or anyone for that matter). Even if I never meet one there are some really nice hobos and I can at least profess that I would have greater respect for this person than - Gordon Gekko - than someone who actually impacts society by creating jobs / capital despite being a total jerk. You're looking at things in terms of usefulness or their actual effect on the world - very practical. I don't think you're wrong but rather there's more to it - I can still vote for the hobo due to his astounding character even if he won't actually do much of value. Again I'd putting good character over practical worth - an idea that is often extolled in our society however illogical. Meinhard1

I like McGeezers' example of the good hobo so are use that. He is not being self-aggrandizing, rather perhaps he is not very organized or has some physical or mentaldisability.

If a strong tree made of invincible wood is never torn from its roots and studied by scientists that doesn't detract from the inherent awesomeness of this remarkable life-form.

A good hobo or a virtuous hermit is not pointless because they exist as a being-in-itself. Furthermore "innate goodness" is also a characteristic that is admirable in the TV talk show host and remains admirable in the marginalized Jesus-eque hobo.

You could argue that this "innate goodness" is of no use to society and therefore of little merit but that doesn't mean that it is pointless... what is society but a bunch of people - beings-in-themselves whom (I would argue) possess varying levels of admirableness based not only their actions but their character as well.

@ Gabu - This confusion might be my fault... But when looking at this topic when applied practically the fact is that some good people are marginalized / unable do to great good. Of course this doesn't apply to my example of the hermit, but it does apply to hobos and other people who for some reason are unable to do good. I like that you bring theology into this... there's also that parable about the coins - where one is rewarded based proportion of what their given to what they produce. Perhaps theologically both my original examples would be damned ( or at least not look on favorabley by God)... the hermit has the ability to do good but doesn't. My other example does works that produce good but for the wrong motives. However (I am getting repetitive I know) the hobo might have done some good deeds - just very small one's that don't have a huge impact on society

Well here's a question in rebuttal: what makes this theoretical hobo "good"? You have called it good, but you have never explained how the concept makes sense of a person who is good yet who has never positively impacted anyone's life.

[QUOTE="Meinhard1"] Again I'd putting good character over practical worth - an idea that is often extolled in our society however illogical. MrGeezer

Why?

I mean, anyone can THINK of themselves as good people.

Anyone can do whatever the hell they want to, and then justify in their own minds that they really are good people.

Even thieves, murderers, and rapists often like to think about themselves in such a way. But again...the thief can comfort himself to his heart's delight while he's serving a 10 year sentence for armed robbery. Most people, good or bad, like to maintain the illusion that they REALLY AREN'T BAD. At least, from my very limited and unscientific anecdotal evidence. Who deliberately tries to convince themselves that they are ****?

People don't like to think of themselves as bad, they like to justify what they're gonna do anyway. Literally ANYONE can do that ****. That's a situation in which a person's inherent goodness is completely and utterly internalized, and ONLY recognized by the person who already has a biased agenda to think that he/she is "good". Why would THAT PERSON be a more fair judge of his/her "goodness" than the other people who have to interact with that person on a daily basis?

Look...if I were going to be one of those two types of people, I'd be the former. I'd be the "good" loner who doesn't really have any effect on people and doesn't have any friends. I'm simply not at all ****ing good with people. That doesn't necessarily make me a BAD person, and I've certainly met worse people than me who have more of a positive impact in other people's lives. But it boils down to this...I can think that I'm a good ****ing person if it helps me to sleep at night. But as far as my IMPACT on society...as far as the POSITIVE influence that I have on people...that **** just ain't there. I try not to hurt people, but I'm not exactly helping anyone either. I can spend all night thinking "deep thoughts", but none of that is worth a flying **** if I am either selfish or lonely enough to let those deep thoughts enter my mind and my mind ALONE.

If those thoughts were worth ANYTHING, then don't I sort of become sort of a dip**** for letting those thoughts pile up in my head and then die without anyone taking advantage of them? Isn't that just a little bit selfish? To keep all of my goodness internalized where I'm the ONLY one who has access to it?

Suppose I really DO have some deep and wonderful thoughts. How good of a person can I be if I decide to keep all of that wonderful **** to myself, and don't let anyone have access to it? Isn't that a bit like a king demanding to be buried with his gold? Whatever value I had, ALL of that dies when I go to the grave, unless I choose to share it with someone else.

[QUOTE="Meinhard1"]

[QUOTE="xaos"] I'm sorry but "innate goodness" that doesn't lead to good acts beyond one's self is self-aggrandizing and pointless.GabuEx

I like McGeezers' example of the good hobo so are use that. He is not being self-aggrandizing, rather perhaps he is not very organized or has some physical or mentaldisability.

If a strong tree made of invincible wood is never torn from its roots and studied by scientists that doesn't detract from the inherent awesomeness of this remarkable life-form.

A good hobo or a virtuous hermit is not pointless because they exist as a being-in-itself. Furthermore "innate goodness" is also a characteristic that is admirable in the TV talk show host and remains admirable in the marginalized Jesus-eque hobo.

You could argue that this "innate goodness" is of no use to society and therefore of little merit but that doesn't mean that it is pointless... what is society but a bunch of people - beings-in-themselves whom (I would argue) possess varying levels of admirableness based not only their actions but their character as well.

@ Gabu - This confusion might be my fault... But when looking at this topic when applied practically the fact is that some good people are marginalized / unable do to great good. Of course this doesn't apply to my example of the hermit, but it does apply to hobos and other people who for some reason are unable to do good. I like that you bring theology into this... there's also that parable about the coins - where one is rewarded based proportion of what their given to what they produce. Perhaps theologically both my original examples would be damned ( or at least not look on favorabley by God)... the hermit has the ability to do good but doesn't. My other example does works that produce good but for the wrong motives. However (I am getting repetitive I know) the hobo might have done some good deeds - just very small one's that don't have a huge impact on society

Well here's a question in rebuttal: what makes this theoretical hobo "good"? You have called it good, but you have never explained how the concept makes sense of a person who is good yet who has never positively impacted anyone's life.

I was trying to "isolate variables" as they say. I wanted to separate the idea of being good and virtuous from impacting society in a positive way. What makes the theoretical hobo good is an entirely different question. The people I made are theoretical and cannot exist - I tried to address this in the final line of the third edit version of my OP. What is good? As I'm sure you know there must be books and books of contradicting ideas on what "good" means. I could offer you my personal views on what good is and you could offer me yours in return but I doubt either of us would be spot on :PMeinhard1

Well, that's the point of conversation, isn't it? :P

I'm as much arguing in favor of this position for me than for anyone else; this seems like an interesting idea so I thought I'd test it to see how far it would go. The question of whether this theoretical good hobo is virtuous would seem to presuppose that there is no logical contradiction between goodness and failure to have positively impacted anyone's life, and I wonder if that is actually the case. Hence, the question: in what way is this hobo indeed "good" in fact rather than just in description? Is not the greatest inner trait of goodness the earnest desire to help others, and would not one who has failed to help others or brighten their lives in any way not possess this trait?

I still don't see why this virtuous loner has to be a jerk... Even in exile Yoda was willing to help young Luke Skywalker when he came to visit! There's many reason why the hypothetical virtuous person won't have an impact on society... and if he was arrogantly withholding his "goodness" (damn vague words) from the world that would violate my original examples. I like what you say in your paragraph that begins with "look..." so maybe person 1 is better because he knows he's a good person and can sleep at night whether he makes as big of an impact on society or not. Maybe virtuous people sleep better or at least are at more peace with themselves? I don't know but I agree that I would rather be person 1 as well. I don't think I properly addressed all the issues you brought up but at least I took the time to give you feedback. It's 3:22 AM here. Good night.Meinhard1

I never said he was a jerk. I also never said that the lovable and popular guy with stupid thoughts was a jerk either.

That's all completely beside the point. The point is that person A's "goodness" is all completely internalized. He and only he gets to reap the benefits of his goodness. Person B SHARES his goodness. People actually like him. He has a positive impact in peoples' lives.

I never assumed that EITHER of them was a jerk.