To those who say I don't bathe for long enough.

So I was thinking in the shower:

So who among us is good, really? The long-quoted phrase 'no-one is perfect' - how many of us would challenge this? Granted, being 'good' is different to being 'perfect' - we may be considered 'good' despite making mistakes. But even so, what is the definition of 'good'?

Oxford Dictionary lists the definitions (as an adjective) thus:
1. To be desired and approved of.
2. Having the required qualities; of a high standard
3. Possessing or displaying moral values
4. Giving pleasure; enjoyable or satisfying
5. Attributive; being thorough
6. Valid
7. Used in conjunction with the name of God or related expression as an expression of extreme surprise or anger

We can discard 4,5,6,7 from this discussion.

1. To be desired and approved of - whose desires/approval are we talking about? Each individual has different desires/ppl they seek approval from - therefore what is good differs from person to person. And this is where influence of people, for good or bad, is able to change the fate of nations eg apartheid in Africa, the Dalits in India, Nazism in WW2, 9/11 etc.

2. Again, whose standards are these? We may say we 'aspire to high standards' yet to others, our standards may be woefully low. What is impressive to me on the tennis court, is peanuts to Roger Federer for example.

3. Moral values, ah. This is the crux. To go back to Oxford, moral is defined as:

a.concerned with principles of right and wrong behaviour.
b.holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.

This is contentious; on one hand, everyone's right or wrong code is different. Someone may agree with cheating to get ahead as long as no one's hurt however others feel this is wrong. However we do consider some things that definitely are bad. eg. rape/murder/incest/abuse. Surely there can be no question of that? So, surely if we do not perform these 'morally condemnable' actions, we must be good, or at least, good-er than people who DID perform these actions.

But then again, is there a scale of goodness? Where we are ranked 6 above Hitler who is probably a minus something? And who decides this scale? Santa Claus?


Where am I going with this?

I put it to you, that the term 'good' is something relative, not absolute. And that all of us who compare ourselves to others do so on an individual code of morality (that is, unless you are of a faith that says differently, in whatever way).

And so the conclusion is, none of us are really 'good' or 'bad'. The closest we can come to deciding that (without outside help) is by judging each other, rather pointlessly in fact when we think about it (but which we are really, really good at). For good people do bad things, and vice-versa, despite the labels we give each other.

And I also put it to you, that this often-quoted question 'Why do bad things happen to good people?' is thus rendered inaccurate.

As in, bad things happen, there's no denying that. But the people that they happen to, are neither good, nor bad. Indeed (if I may be allowed to use an expression from what I believe), we are all sinners in need of grace.

What do you think?