Good? part one

While going through the Sunday paper, I read an article about one of my favorite actors. The article about Harrison Ford was very interesting and I appreciated the comments. One of his quotes got me thinking. In describing himself, he said "I want to be good at what I do, and I want to learn from other people how to get good, be good, stay good".

What does 'good' mean? Good at doing something? Good in you behavior; a good person? What is the source of that 'goodness'? If I'm being good, what does it mean to -not be good? Are other people the source of how to get good? Is the definition of a good person a utilitarian construct of societal agree-ability? Why don't I agree to Hitler's social actions? If I know where 'good' is going, do I know where it comes from? If I define being good differently from another person's definition, how can they be both 'good'?

Unless some source point of  'good' is outside of a personal opinion, it must only be a personal reference that can be adjusted to whatever circumstance may come my way. Expediency becomes the word, not 'good'. So, let me suggest that an external referent must be applied to insure a reasonable indication of what 'good' is and what 'good behavior' looks like.

It is amazing how many cultures worldwide have similar norms, morals, ethic references. Although the application sometimes appears different, the core of action (we might cal them values or virtues) is remarkably similar.

In one of the business articles I read recently, the author noted six items in Western business practices that illustrate having 'good behavior'. These items, which I will look at in later posts, seem to translate into all cultures. They are: honesty, honor, self-respect, humility, manners, and the practice of respect. Again application may vary, but the virtues remain integrated to the culture. Even the crudest tribe culture may lie and cheat outside the tribe to achieve gain, but they will stand with the virtue of honesty with their members. In comparison, when an action goes beyond the norm of the virtue the person is said to be bad, evil, maybe even sinful. So how do we know and label it that way?

There seems to be some reference point in which these virtues have been established as 'good'. I would suggest that man has been unable to establish them on his own. This is based primarily on the fact that people are first self-motivated to their own definition and personal self interests. Even I cannot evade this pull to the self-justification of my actions. So where did these virtues, which can be contrary to my wants and demands, find their birth and what does it mean for my 'good' behavior?

What are your thoughts?