As the title says, this is a new idea on the current good man, with a focus on where it came from. I am dealing with this since it is an interesting theory that came to me and creating a complete system is daunting and intimidating so putting that off for longer is something I will naturally do. Plus I am writing this post later than I usually prefer.
The topic now is the “good” and why it is “good.” This time by “good” I mean the actions themselves-what people call doing good. Volunteering, giving and helping someone out when they ask for it, even something as simple as holding the door. That type of good is what I am talking about now, I just do not know of a good way to define it.
If you want further information on how some people think that this type of good came about I recommend reading Nietzsche since his writings have been a large influence on me. Although, my approach takes a different view than he discusses but I do not believe the theories are mutually exclusive, I think they can actually work together overall.
So now, onto the theory.
The theory is: that doing good in the way I previously loosely defined was a way for someone to show off their “vitality.” Vitality in this sense can mean many different things: a person’s power, wealth, strength, sheer will, their connection with their life, essentially vitality as I understand it, I just want to make sure I am clear. Doing good then, was a way for someone to basically display their vitality since they could spare the time, money, energy or combination thereof to give/apply to another person/people without gaining anything back other than pride and getting to display their power: this is that warm fuzzy feeling people claim they get when doing good. People like having power and being able to show it off (reference every status symbol that exists). Those that do not have vitality to spare are then grateful for being able to get some extra for free or very little effort and not being crushed by those with more vitality since, that could have been an option too (I did not mention before, but this theory is supposed to have basically been carried out before modern times. I am not sure when but think more tribal society and it will help with perspective I think). So, that warm fuzzy feeling people claim is accounted for, what about feeling guilt or shame for not helping?
This feeling of guilt or shame for not doing good comes from embarrassment in this theory. A person feels ashamed because they do not have the vitality to spare to another and therefor are considered weaker and arguably, below those that do have the vitality to spare. That is an embarrassment to end up in that position (see: how everyone always wants status symbols and many feel inadequate if they do not have them). Maybe someone did have the vitality to share to do good for another though, but they were afraid to let it go in case those that he helped became his enemy. This is another reason to be embarrassed and thus, feel shameful or guilty for not doing good-fear. Those that do have the vitality to spare and do spend it are showing that they are certain that even if those they help become antagonists they will be able to overcome them and are not afraid of having to go against them. So it was more impetus to do good, to show your vitality, whether or not you actually have it, and show bravery; both of which bring honor and pride to the actor from the others who help or who see the good being done thus moving the actor up in society.
I hope to come back to this theory at some point but for now I had to get something down in writing and give some food for thought to anyone who may come around this blog at some point.