Jeremy Bentham defined a "good" person as someone who does good, a definition that drew much criticism at the time. One such criticism came from Bertrand Russell, who argued that Kant's thought—that goodness stemming from love for the recipient is not virtuous, but only virtuous if inspired by moral principles—is far superior. However, it seems we are somewhat misunderstanding or exaggerating the concept of virtue here. Comparing our two examples, we have a good deed done out of love, and another done inspired by moral principles and considered virtuous by Kant. One is triggered by love, while the other is triggered by the inner peace we feel when we do good. The motivation for both is essentially the peace we gain from doing good.
Actually, there's not much difference between them. Both stem from selfishness, and if I felt like being contrary, I might even find the good that Kant considers virtuous to be more self-serving. Defining goodness is therefore wrong, especially rejecting accepted forms of goodness and claiming that this is the true good. But I won't lie, I also feel like saying, "This is good, this isn't," and inciting people. However, I probably can't fool anyone. I'll just talk to myself.
July 2018
Originally published on Medium on September 12, 2020. English translation of ““İyi””.