I ran across this quote a while back and wanted to get feedback from blog readers on the thoughts it contains:

"In a time when the notion of goodness has been thoroughly watered down, as politeness is mistaken for kindness, certainty passes for faith, ethics for spirituality and middle-class mores for saintliness, it's good to be reminded that those whom many consider saints are complex human beings who more often than not defy convention."

--Gregory Rodriguez

I can't remember the context of the quote (it might have been around the time that Mother Teresa's private writings came out and revealed her to be a woman with doubts).  Nevertheless, this quote raises a number of questions for me, chief among them--What is my notion of goodness?

My answer to that question will take more than a blog to sort through, but here are my initial thoughts:

Goodness is evidenced by an individual's behavior--it is not merely an ideal (to which we hold others accountable).  A good act is one that considers all parties to the act; self, those directly affected, those tangentially affected (so-called collateral damage)--and contributes most to the common good. 

As such, good acts need to be thoughtful.  They can only happen within the context of critical thinking.  Otherwise, there's a danger of substituting adherence to a code for actual consideration of the situation.

My addendum on goodness is that it's not a static attribute.  One is not "always good."  One is rarely always "bad."  As Dr. Hamlin once urged me, "you may want to consider a dynamic notion of goodness."

I've come to understand that goodness does not happen by "keeping all the rules."  If it did, according to the Judeo-Christian tradition--there would have been no need of Christ for all could be accomplished through adherence to the Law.  But codified laws are tricky things.

They are written in generalities, but we live life in specifics.  They are written in a particular historical context with certain desired results.  Interpreted across the centuries, in different cultures, they lose their impact and their level of "justice" is compromised.

So that's my first stab at understanding "goodness."  I know there are brilliant minds out there who check in on this blog from time to time--feel free to argue, amend, debate, clarify.



 


Comments

Erik

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:08:03

Like a greqt deal of what you said. Not static, contextual - absolutely. (No pun intended.) It's about specifics and place and time and people.

Don't know that I agree with the thoughtful or best for all parties statement. I think sometimes a great deal of goodness happens on the spur of the moment, and equally as often that some parties are put out/troubled/even disadvantaged by the act. I think your context argument extends to this piece. Sometimes in the context some folks are helped and some folks are hindered, but the act was good, necessary, the "right" thing to do, anyways.

 

Laura

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:14:15

Hey Erik,

I was very careful to state that all parties are "considered" but the decision arrived at is one that's best for the common good (which to me implies that some are disadvantaged).

And while I agree that goodness can happen on the spur of the moment, I think it's bred from thoughtful reflection, self-knowledge if you will--rather than by rote.

 

Sally

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:49:07

Does "never let the left hand know what the right hand is doing" enter in somewhere about goodness? I ardently hope to be able to do that someday, but so far my selfish nature always seems to take over. Oh well, someday.

 



Leave a Reply