There is a difference between Right and Good – the two concepts are often used synonymously in discussions but they are not the same. The distinction is noted in Romans 5:7…
Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die.
A righteous man is not (necessarily) a good man. A righteous man is someone whose actions are according to what is right i.e. to do what you must do and avoid doing what you must not do. A good man is someone who does good. To do good is to do something out of love.
Rightness, or righteousness, is a matter of right and wrong – e.g. paying your debts, honouring a contract, honesty, self defense.
Goodness is a matter of the heart e.g. generosity, kindness, helping those in need, mercy.
This topic seems too obvious to blog about but I’m sure this post will be useful for linking to later.
Feel free to discuss or critique.
But surely kindness, goodness, come from the mind, also? The heart is just an organ. Although I think, like you, there is a difference between those two words. But it’s more, righteous as in haughty and self-conscious, as opposed to goodness as in genuine.
A cold left untreated may linger on for up to seven miserable days. But a cold treated with vitamin C will be gone within a week!
Surely you mean kindness and goodness come from the brain. The mind is just an abstraction isn’t it? 😉
Don’t believe everything you heard in church. IMO “righteous” has come to mean “self-righteous” through church tradition. But “righteous” means doing what is right.
If your neighbours window is broken, and he can’t afford to fix it, a good thing to do is to pay for it to be repaired. This is doing something good – but not doing what is right.
If your neighbours window is broken, and you broke it, the right thing to do is to pay for it to be repaired. This is doing what is right – but not doing something good.
Reed, you have opened a Pandora’s box.
What do you think is the relationship between what is right and rights?
I almost did a post on that some weeks ago.
I think it is a progression of the meaning of words.
My notes…
Right and wrong.
Rights (as in rights and wrongs).
Rights (as in ownership rights, human rights, etc).
Succinct, Reed!
Given that you think the idea of “rights” has evolved (as it were) from the idea of “right”, do you agree (with me) that the two terms, ‘right’ and ‘rights’ are interdefinable? And interdefinable with the other (thin) moral terms? For example, we each have a moral *obligation* towards are fellow human beings not to kill them. It would be morally *wrong* to do so. In other words, a human being has a moral *right* to life.
There’s a summary of my doctoral dissertation here.
I’m still not sure what to make of the Old Testament … (Oops! Here comes Tim! Run for cover!)
I think discussions of justice (right and wrong) and rights are discussions about the same topic but I don’t think that rights are definable so I can only almost agree that the concepts are interdefinable.
I found this the other day…
NASB – Proverbs 29:7 The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor, The wicked does not understand such concern.
NIV – Proverbs 29:7 The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.
…a human being has a moral *right* to life.
… and dying is wrong?
…a human being has a moral *right* to life.
… and dying is wrong?
Damn it, Reed!
You’re good. And you’re right. I wish I’d had you as my Ph.D. supervisor. 🙂
Ha! I touch on this subject in the ‘Good God evil world’ series I am writing, in that God has the right to take away our lives. And further still he may delegate that right to human beings of his choosing, for his purposes, when ever he wishes. (This is the same principle of Government being delegated its powers as an extension of the rights of the individuals whom create the government). Thus when we talk about ‘inalienable rights’ we must understand that they are inalienable via human right…. but that God may alienate us of our rights at any time.
🙂 🙂
Richard
Is holiness a thin moral term?
Reed, my initial response is no, ‘holiness’ is not a thin moral term, it’s a thick moral term, because it has descriptive content as well as evaluative content. But I reserve the right (!) to change my mind about this later.
I think that ‘just’ (and ‘fair’) are thick moral terms, and that ‘right’ (and ‘rights’) are thin moral terms. But I was never really too sure about ‘just’, arguably it’s a thin moral term, not a thick one. As someone once said … to be more precise … I don’t know.