What is kindness? What is good for me? What is goodness and good deeds
Morality guides human behavior in terms of opposing good and evil. The world is divided in moral consciousness into good and evil, good and bad, laudable from a moral point of view and deserving of blame. All human actions are evaluated through this dichotomy: feeling, thought, intention, deed can be either good - corresponding to good, or evil - emanating from evil and leading to it.
Therefore, good and evil are the fundamental categories of ethical consciousness, on the content of which all other ethical ideas depend.
Good and evil are concepts of a high degree of generalization, these are the extreme polar characteristics of the human world, expressing the fundamental attitudes of moral consciousness. Therefore, on the first approaches to revealing their content, we are faced with a situation where there is almost nothing to say about them. Good is good... We are always glad to see him. Evil is evil, and no one wants it... What can you add here? It would seem that everything is intuitively clear and at the same time difficult to express. However, this happens with all universal concepts that act as prerequisites for our thinking, implicit landmarks of consciousness. How to be? Obviously, it is necessary to give a working definition of the concept of interest to us, and then post-
Ways of good and evil
slowly, step by step, reveal its meaning, concretizing it in comparison with the meaning of other ethical ideas.
How can good be defined in the most general form?
Good is that which is positively evaluated, seen as important and significant for human life and society. Good is that which allows a person tosociety to live, develop, prosper, achieve harmony and perfection.
Good, thus, already in the first approximation is associated with life, prosperity, fullness of being, harmonious interaction with the surrounding reality. Good is that which is good, beautiful and worthy of all praise.
The concept of good is very close in content to the concept of good; they often act as synonyms. In everyday speech, both words characterize not only moral behavior, but also material wealth. We say: "He accumulated a lot of good things" or "There was an abundance of material goods." However, the very positive assessment of things, products and money as goods is based on a broader understanding of good (good) as something that is valuable and significant for people.
If in a non-religious consciousness, good (good) is considered only as a result of our assessment, that is, of a certain subjective position, then in religion, good is a characteristic of the world itself. It is ontological, given by God. Moreover, God himself is the Good, the highest of all possible blessings, he is the source and center of the human value world. Thus, the image of good is predestined to man, presupposed to him. People should not invent their own ideas about the good, but seek and discover them as objectively existing. On this path, they will inevitably come to God as the highest good.
The concept of good correlates with two other concepts - kindness and virtue.
Lecture I
We call a good person a person who brings good to people, understood as love, help, goodwill. The kind one is never aggressive and never forcibly imposes blessings, leaving others the freedom of choice. Kindness is a quality that expresses itself in practical life, in people's behavior, it characterizes the integrity of the individual. Therefore, one cannot be kind in the soul, but tough, rude, authoritarian in behavior. Such behavior destroys kindness. Kindness is associated with the ability to give up one's own interests and ambitions for the benefit of another person; it is fundamentally unselfish.
Virtue is not the same as kindness. We call virtues moral and commendable human qualities, and they differ significantly in different cultures and in different eras. So, for example, the main virtues of the Stoic sage were dispassion, severity and ruthlessness, courage and strict fulfillment of duty. Pride is also a stoic virtue. In contrast, the leading Christian virtues are humility and indiscriminate sympathetic love, which is directed even to enemies. And pride - pride - on the contrary, is ranked among the vices.
Within the same moral system, different virtues express different facets of goodness. So, the virtues are both humility and courage, kindness and severity, generosity and thrift, justice and generosity. Virtues are not just given to people, but are brought up in them. Every society and every culture develops a number of techniques that allow the formation in the members of the community of these highly valued moral qualities that are necessary for the survival and development of the social whole. In all cultures, folk heroes and saints are the bearers of the best virtues.
It is important to distinguish between concepts of good andbenefit. The fact is that since the XVII-XVIII centuries. in Europe
Ways of good and evil
there is an idea of morality as a system of mutual utility. An equal sign is put between good and practical use. These ideas are developed by English utilitarian authors of the 19th century. I. Bentham and J.-St. Mill, and then reproduced in a new form in the philosophy of American pragmatism (C. Pierce, W. James, D. Dewey).
In accordance with these views, good is everything that is useful, that is, everything that meets the satisfaction of some human need. What is useful is that which brings us satisfaction, pleasure, happiness. In different situations, different things and different ways of behavior are useful, and therefore goodness turns out to be extremely diverse. At the center of the utilitarian-pragmatic understanding of "good-benefit" is a particular subject concerned with the satisfaction of his needs. He, in principle, can wish everyone else pleasure and happiness, but he cares first of all about his own well-being, about good for himself. This good, which is equal to usefulness, turns out to be, first of all, a combination of material and social benefits.
The reduction of good to the benefit of a private subject (person or group) blurs the criteria between good and evil. Indeed, in order to acquire certain benefits and satisfy one's needs, it can be very useful (profitable) to kill or rob someone. This will help to achieve a personal goal and get the desired pleasure - wealth or power. However, can this be called good? Is this kind of behavior good? Can it be evaluated unconditionally positively? I guess not. In the same way, it can be very beneficial for yourself to humiliate other people, to mock them, in order to satisfy your desire for dominance and self-assertion. However, such behavior is also very far from good. The fact is that the needs of people are very different, they are perverted, neurotic, and indulging them
Lecture 1
capable of turning into the greatest evil for others. Speaking of benefits, we always ask: “For whom?”
In moral consciousness, true good is that which is good for everyone, for humanity as a whole and for each individual. Of course, such goodness is very abstract in a world where needs, desires, and opinions collide. The ideal of goodness for all is a regulative idea, something like a compass needle pointing in the direction of movement. What is useful to mankind may not be useful to me. So, for example, curbing one's base instincts - greed, lust, envy - is a difficult and unpleasant thing, but it is good for people as a kind: what would happen to culture if everyone began to indulge their dark passions? Probably, people would have exterminated each other in the war of "all against all." Therefore, a moral person tames his egoistic desires, in a certain sense he sacrifices the satisfaction of his own whims, ambitions and desires, following the good of the socio-cultural whole. For universal good, it is often necessary to give up one's little good, from selfish benefits, voluntarily sacrifice them to the interests of the family and thereby help humanity harmonize social and moral relations.
In addition to the question “for whom is it useful?”, there is the question “for what is it useful?”.
It is useful to exercise to be healthy. This means that the goal and value is not exercise itself, but health. Or it is useful to earn a lot of money. What is it good for? To ensure a well-fed life, prestige or the opportunity to have free time in the future. But money appears here only as a means for something else. They are not good, but a path to what we consider good in this case, to some other values that cannot be reduced to money. Useful by definition is serviceable, it is not an end, but a means. That is why good and useful are different, although in the course of real life
Ways of good and evil
the same things can act for specific people both as an individual good (for example, material well-being) and as a benefit (the same material well-being as a means for creativity, cognition, self-realization, etc.).
In the morality of specific cultures, the undoubted good, which cannot be reduced to utility, is the highest values. They are valuable in themselves, not utilitarian, on the contrary, all the efforts of the individual are made for the sake of their acquisition. In religious morality, this is unity with God, the salvation of the soul, a merciful attitude towards other people. Outside of religion, the highest moral values are humanity, justice, love. The highest moral value can be the self-realization of a person, understood as his harmonious interaction with the world, creativity, the good of the Motherland. These are the types of relationships that do not bring specific material benefits, practical success. On the contrary, people sacrifice many other things for their sake.
For the sake of their native country, they do not spare their lives, in the name of love they refuse wealth, out of humanity they do not agree to advantageous offers that can oppress others.
The highest values of specific people and specific cultures are different, but in high morality, goodness always includes only such guidelines that connect people with each other and with the universe as a whole. Purely selfish values cannot be moral goodness. Even where they are not associated with material, mundane benefits and usefulness, but are expressed in the pursuit of absolute creative uniqueness or individual self-affirmation without regard to others, they cannot be recognized as good, since, figuratively speaking, they gravitate towards demonism. A person who has made his own uniqueness the highest and indisputable value will never give in to others and will not give up anything for them, he will always cherish only his incomparable "I". AT
Lecture 1
in a particular situation, he will not be kind, but will be uncompromising and angry, violating the principle of unconditional goodwill.
Another point that distinguishes benefit from good is the disinterestedness of good.
What is useful must certainly benefit me personally or the group with which I identify myself. Therefore, utility relations are reciprocal: I do something useful to someone with the expectation that I will receive an adequate response. Your bash. At the same time, I am afraid to sell cheap and get less than I gave. The good given to others should immediately return to me, because the goal of the entire “operation” is to acquire what is useful for oneself. It's practical and rational, it's even cool and convenient, but it's not good.
Kindness, since it does not pursue the satisfaction of selfish interests, has the ability to be generous and not demand instant rewards. More precisely, it does not require remuneration at all, but can only hope for it. Therefore, real good can be done only on the condition of great spiritual wealth. In order to freely and generously give favor, care, attention, love to others, you must have all this in abundance and not be afraid that, having exhausted yourself, you yourself will be left without anything. True, folk wisdom says that to those who generously do good, a lot also comes in return, the more you give, the more you receive. And yet you can't count on it. True goodness is created without calculations, from the very need to pour out love, to give it to the world and people.
Thus, being related to each other, good and useful are very different.
Good in Christianity
In Christianity, God is considered the most important representative of goodness - or even the source of this concept itself. Objective criterion of good(as well as good things) is his conformity to the will of God.
Christianity considers evil not as an independent entity, but as a diminution of good. The source of evil is the evil will of rational and free beings who deviated from the path of goodness and fell into opposition to God. The first to do this was the supreme angel Lucifer (glor. Dennitsa), who as a result became Satan (the Devil). The angels, carried away by him into the fall, became demons, who see the meaning of their existence in enmity with God, and can no longer repent and start doing good again.
gospel good
In the Gospel, good is above all works of mercy. Distinguish between works of bodily mercy - to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, receive a stranger, clothe the naked, visit the sick or prisoner (Matt. 25:35-36), and spiritual mercy - to turn the sinner from his false path - to save the soul (James 5:20). ).
Also in Christianity it is stated that no, even the smallest good, in the end will not be left without a reward from God (Matt. 10:42, Mark 9:41).
Goodness in Hinduism
When the chakra suddenly closes (for example, with the loss of a loved one or betrayal, when a constant coldness is felt in the solar plexus), then the person is visited by thoughts of suicide. Then, in order to open the chakra again, you need to find a way to do good to someone. If this is not possible, then the person refuses food, after a few days exhaustion sets in, and the human body (resisting his feelings) activates the survival chakra - Muladhara
Goodness in Islam
concept of good in culture
One of the common (ironic) phrases regarding of good: "Good must be with fists". The phrase is attributed to M. Svetlov, who informed several poets of it with a request to write a poem beginning with this line. The most famous poem was written by Stanislav Kunyaev:
good must be with fists
Good must be harsh
To fly wool in tufts
From everyone who climbs for good ...
Another example is the phrase "the victory of the forces of good over the forces of reason", reflecting skepticism towards the Christian assessment of good.
Good is an evaluation criterion, an abstraction. By good we understand the aspirations of a person, his culture. Culture and the concepts of good and evil are closely linked. If culture is "cultivation" - and now we mean by this the richness of the results of human labor and development, then one of the directions of this development is good, the other is evil.
Notes
see also
Links
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .
See what "Good (philosophy)" is in other dictionaries:
Normative evaluative categories of moral consciousness, in an extremely generalized form, denoting, on the one hand, the proper and morally positive, good, and on the other hand, morally negative and reprehensible in actions and motives ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
Current in philosophy con. 19 early 20th century, which put forward as the initial concept of "life" as the fundamental basis of the world. This trend includes thinkers of different types of philosophizing: F. Nietzsche, V. Dilthey, A. Bergson, O. Spengler, G. ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
In the broad sense of the word, as a good, means, firstly, a value representation that expresses the positive meaning of ch. l. in its relation to some standard, and secondly, this standard itself. In live speech, the word "D." used to refer to... Philosophical Encyclopedia
Branch of philosophy that gives philosophy. interpretation of the historical process. Philosophical elements. comprehension of history was contained in antich. philosophy and historiographic works. In the Middle Ages, philosophy the study of history was not separated in any clear way from ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
The teachings of the Russian philosopher Nikolai Fedorov. During his lifetime, N. F. Fedorov, avoiding fame and not wanting to receive money for his writings, published his articles under pseudonyms or did not print at all, giving them to read in handwritten form. Name ... ... Wikipedia
PHILOSOPHY OF NEW AND MODERN TIMES period in the development of philosophical thought (17-19 centuries), which gave a constellation of outstanding thinkers from various countries and peoples Despite the uniqueness of the creative contribution of each of them, it is possible to single out the main ideas and ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
Philosophical views of the Bashkirs and philosophical science in Bashkortostan. Contents 1 ... Wikipedia
Representations of a Russian person about the general foundations of being, God, the universe and knowledge. Since ancient times, the main concept of Russian philosophy has been the soul and the spiritual and moral categories associated with it. Russian philosophy is first of all ... ... Russian history
philosophy of religion- a significant component of Russian. philosophical thought throughout its history. The specific content of this component was constantly enriched; the very development of the problems of F. r. carried out from different worldview positions. Problem F… Russian Philosophy. Encyclopedia
GOOD- the most important ethical and metaphysical concept, the ultimate foundation of human moral activity, the highest and most common positive value. By origin, the concept of "D." closely related to the ontological idea of having an objective good... Orthodox Encyclopedia
The category of good is the ultimate axiological universal. The term "good" denotes a set of positively assessed phenomena under the assumption that such an assessment is not subjective and relative, but objective and universal. There is a strong tendency to regard the concept of goodness as a pointer to the logical boundaries of morality. The latter is often defined precisely as a set of ideas about good and evil.
However, in this case, only one - narrow - meaning of the concept of "good" is used. It fixes the parameters of the perfect behavior and perfect character of a person, mainly in relation to interaction with other people. A living moral consciousness operates with the concept of goodness only at high levels of self-reflection, which merge with philosophical reasoning. Beyond the desire to generalize worldview attitudes, in the direct practice of moral assessment, evaluative characteristics of a lesser degree of generality are used, such as "fair" ("honest"), "worthy", "compassionate", "caring", etc. In Russian, the concept of “kind” at this level of its use does not correlate with the common denominator of all positive assessments, but with such particular characteristics as “compassionate”, “incapable of cruelty”, “generous” (cf.: “kind person” , "Good deed"). It refers us not so much to the concept of "good" as to the concept of "kindness".
The broad meaning of the category "good" mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph goes far beyond morality. It implies the realization of a whole range of positive values that guide a person in the world. Good in the broad sense of the word combines the embodiment in human existence of moral perfection, beauty, true knowledge of nature, man and society, religious faith, pious life and final salvation. So, from the point of view of V. S. Solovyov, goodness, truth and beauty "live only by their union." “Good, separated from truth and beauty, is only an indefinite feeling, a powerless impulse, abstract truth is an empty word, and beauty without goodness and truth is an idol ... These are three inseparable types of one unconditional idea. The infinity of the human soul, capable of to contain in itself the whole infinity of the deity - this idea is at the same time the greatest good, and the highest truth, and the most perfect beauty. BUT. Lossky, taking into account the potential authoritarianism, the repressiveness of the idea of goodness in relation to the richness and diversity of human existence, supplements a series consisting of objective and universal standards ("moral goodness, universally binding single truth, objective beauty") with a value that reflects the uniqueness and uniqueness of each human personality. - "the fullness of life, which does not constrain other beings, but, on the contrary, benefits everyone."
Assuming the final coincidence of value absolutes, reconciling their potential conflicts, it is possible to interpret moral or moral good (good in the narrow sense of the word) as a secondary expression of other absolute values. In philosophical thought, moral goodness is often characterized in terms of cognitive or aesthetic categories. The ancient intellectual tradition was characterized by a tendency towards the parallel application of these two methods. The ideas of moral beauty and moral truth easily coexisted with each other. The Socratic idea of the identity of virtue and knowledge, virtue and exact measurement (the dialogue "Protagoras") was quite compatible with the theses that "the just is always beautiful, because it is just," and that "the most ugly of all is injustice and, in general, the corruption of the soul" (dialogue " Gorgias"). In Plato's "Feast" love for beautiful souls acts as one of the steps of philosophical comprehension of the truth of the world. In modern European philosophy, on the contrary, the aestheticization of moral goodness and its epistemologization often turned out to be opposing positions, as happened in the case of the dispute between the English sentimentalists and the rationalists of the 17th-18th centuries. For the Cambridge Platonists, man's path to goodness was like mathematical knowledge. To deny "that I must save the life of an innocent person in my power, or save him from imminent danger" is the same as denying "the obvious ... proportions of lines and numbers." For Shaftesbury and some of the thinkers who succeeded him, this path is akin to the development of aesthetic taste. The moral feeling "consists in a real antipathy and aversion to the unjust and wrong, in a real love for the just and right for their own sake and on the basis of their natural beauty and value ... The soul ... discovers beauty and ugliness in actions, dispositions of the spirit, characters just as in shapes, sounds, colors." The reason that the aesthetic and epistemological understanding of moral good ceased to act as complementary approaches can be considered the isolation and opposition of scientific, cognitive and artistic practice that occurred in the new European culture.
In philosophical and, to a lesser extent, in everyday word usage, along with the concept of "good" there is a concept close to it in meaning, but having a number of additional meanings, the concept of "good". In Russian, the semantic specificity of the concept of "good" is expressed by two differently directed tendencies. The first is related to the religious and theological context of the original use ("good", "good" - a characteristic of God and the fullness of his creation). As noted by V.V. Bibikhin, "if the motive of absolute moral duty and volitional choice dominates in the synonymous concept of good, then the concept of good is more ontological and belongs to the cosmic context." Good indicates not so much a normative standard as something already realized, embodied in the world and causing a positive assessment on the part of a person. Sometimes this incarnation is not understood or accepted by a person in its positive meaning. And in this case, he turns out to be cut off from the good, not involved in it. At P.A. Florensky, we find such a remarkable description of F. Tyutchev's worldview: "For an individual, destruction is suffering and evil. In the general structure of the world, that is, outside of human evaluation, this is neither good nor evil, but good, for such is the law of life." In addition, the concept of "good" is synonymous with good only in its broad sense, correlated with moral, aesthetic, cognitive and religious values taken together. It is often used to emphasize the limits of moral evaluation or the insufficiency of the idea that arises from morality about the goals of human life. For example, S.L. Frank: "The human soul knows some good, or yearns for some good, higher than moral good: this is the good that saves the soul." In an extreme case, as in I. Kant, the concept of good as part of the phrase "supreme good" can be used to demonstrate that the subject of the perfect will of a rational being is not only moral virtue, but happiness proportionate to it.
However, there is another trend that has gained predominance in the Russian language in the last two centuries. It consists in the fact that the concept of the good is understood as "good for someone" (good in some very deep, not momentary, maybe even final sense, but in relation to a certain subject). This meaning was used by V. S. Solovyov in his Justification of the Good. From his point of view, the articulation of moral problems not in terms of good, but in terms of good or well-being is the result of thinkers' understanding that moral imperatives have little practical effectiveness. In an effort to give them a genuine universality and necessity, philosophy tries to identify such a "practical principle" that would be something "not only due, but also highly desirable in itself and for everyone." This way of understanding morality separates "good and well-being from their actual purely moral conditions" and gives rise to such dead-end, from his point of view, ethical teachings as "hedonism", "prudence eudemonism", "utilitarianism".
The separation of duty (good) from good, which disturbed VS Solovyov, is overcome in ethics on the basis of reasoning that structurally corresponds to the Aristotelian understanding of "the highest good". Defining the good precisely as the object of striving (goal), Aristotle talked about the existence of such a goal, which is "desirable to us in itself" and the absence of which makes the pursuit of all other goals "meaningless and futile." Without the completion of the individual pyramid of ends and means, not a single person can organize activities for the successful pursuit of his own good. And if there is a convincing substantiation of the meaningful general significance of this completion, then the potential discrepancy between duty (good) and good is not realized. V.S. Solovyov also believed that it could be avoided: “Moral goodness, in its very essence, is a way of actually achieving real good, or bliss, that is, one that can give a person stable and final satisfaction. Good (and bliss) in this sense is only the other side of the good, or another point of view on it... One must wish the good for itself, but this pure will is in no way violated by our consciousness that the good itself is necessarily good for the fulfiller of its demand. any good for ourselves, but this does not in the least prevent us from understanding and taking into account the fact of experience that any good, in order not to turn out to be imaginary or illusory, must be conditioned by good, i.e. fulfillment of moral requirements. However, the Russian philosopher believed that man himself "is powerless ... to make his good a real blessing." Only by uniting good strivings with God, he can successfully solve this problem.
Attempts to formulate a strict philosophical definition of good run into significant problems, already known in antiquity, but precisely articulated in the 20th century. British ethicist J. E. Moore. Echoing the Socratic denunciation of attempts to answer the question of beauty in itself by pointing to "something that ... is no more beautiful than ugly," J. E. Moore developed a systematic critique of the identification of good with natural qualities (objects). Among the latter are pleasure, objects of desire, health, normality, place in the order of evolution. He designated this identification with the help of the term "naturalistic error". In fact, the natural qualities identified with good only accompany good: either constantly (as waves of a certain length accompany the perception of a certain color), or situationally. However, in neither case are they identical to him. So, to the thesis about the identity of the good and the "normal state", J. E. Moore responds with the following questions: "Was the genius of Socrates or Shakespeare a normal phenomenon? Was it not rather an abnormal, extraordinary phenomenon?" "Special perfection," he continues, "as well as special depravity, must obviously be something abnormal." Hence the conclusion follows that the situational connection of the normal state with the good must be proved on the basis of experience and for each specific case. In a similar way, the connection between good and health, which is perhaps more stable, should be proved. Even metaphysical ethics, which, by definition, breaks the connection between good and nature, does not avoid, according to J. E. Moore, "the naturalistic error." For her, "to be good" means to have "certain supersensible traits," for example, stemming from the very nature of will or desire. J. E. Moore believed that the only way to get around the "naturalistic fallacy" was to postulate that good "in itself" is a primary, simple, indecomposable, indefinable concept that is comprehended with the help of intuition.
A less pessimistic picture about the definition of good emerges if the process of assigning characteristics such as "good" and "bad" is understood in a functionalist way. Thus, the American philosopher A. McIntyre argues that the “initial argument” of the exemplary and only viable ethics, the ethics of the Aristotelian model, “suggests that what Moore later called the “naturalistic error” is not an error at all and that statements about what is good .. . represent precisely factual assertions of a certain kind." They are associated with the assumption that any object, including a person, has a specific purpose or function, the quality of which can be fixed in the form of a factual statement. Any action can be called "good" if it is proved that under the given conditions it was to be performed by a good person corresponding to his function. A general definition of good in this case is quite possible. It is built as a description of human destiny. According to A. McIntyre, such a description necessarily refers to some particular moral tradition, but for other moral philosophers it has universal significance.
Hello, dear readers of the blog site. All of us are taught from childhood to be kind: to help the weak, take care of the elderly, not offend animals and do good deeds.
To this end, people came up with proverbs and sayings about kindness, on which more than one generation was brought up. Why is this needed? To make the world a better place.
Unfortunately, not everyone has this quality. Or present, but to a lesser extent. How to develop it and what kindness gives people is the topic of today's article.
Definition - what is kindness
What is kindness in simple words? This desire to make others feel good: to perform certain actions that cause others joy, gratitude and other positive feelings. It is responsiveness and tolerance.
An important criterion for this quality, in my opinion, is lack of self-interest. That is, you did something good and you yourself are pleased that someone pleased. You don't expect the same in return. You just do it without any intention or calculation.
Kindness is a spiritual property, a character trait, a personal quality. She either exists or she doesn't.. It is impossible to be kind today, go crazy tomorrow, become a villain, and next week become kind again. That doesn't happen.
But you can educate it in yourself. In fact, this is a very correct and beneficial quality for a person, which allows you to receive from life and people what they would never give to others.
Were inadvertently invented hundreds of proverbs about kindness, which in a simple form convey to people the wisdom of the ages:
But do not confuse it with an extreme, when a person takes off his last pants. To help, sometimes it is enough to support with a pleasant word, advice or a smile.
A kind person accepts people as they are, he loves them and does not judge them. Often we confuse this quality with when we literally force others to do something, we try to re-educate them.
It seems to us that it will be better this way, but in fact we only care about our feelings. There is an excellent expression on this topic catch up and "cause" good". It is about the fact that sometimes, with the best intentions, we, without realizing it, cause suffering to others.
A simple example: a mother who is sure that her son married the wrong one destroys his marriage in every possible way, intrigues, offends and provokes her daughter-in-law. In this situation, they go hand in hand: the mother wants her child to be happy, but she measures this happiness on her own, ignoring the interests of her son, thereby making him feel bad.
Often in such situations, the relationship between son and mother deteriorates greatly, and the latter remains in splendid isolation with the belief that she raised an ungrateful offspring. Do you think you can call her a kind person? I think no.
And there are many such examples. So if you weren't asked for anything, and you want to do something good (in your opinion), ask yourself: " Does a person need? Who do I care about now - about him or about myself? Better yet, ask the other person directly if they need your kindness at the moment.
Cultivating kindness and how to become kind in 7 steps
How to cultivate this quality in a person? For young children, different methods are used: reading proverbs about kindness, fairy tales and parables, showing cartoons. But if an adult says one thing, and then kicks the cat in front of the child, then this is unlikely to help (but rather in the child's head).
Personal example- the best way to convey something. No matter what you teach your offspring, they will still repeat your actions. So do good things more often.
At school, teenagers are often given the task - "What is kindness", conduct lessons on this topic and organize events aimed at the manifestation of this quality.
But what about an adult who has grown up a long time ago: he does not go to school, and his parents have long abandoned attempts to somehow educate him? I offer you a “program for cultivating your own kindness”, consisting of 7 stages:
Good deeds are the lot of eccentrics or "soft power"
In their justification, evil and cruel people compose many "fairy tales" explaining why being kind is bad. Whether you like it or not, this is just the work of your psychological defenses, aimed at drowning out your voice, so as not to feel shame and guilt.
What are - I will give the two most common:
- Kindness is naivety. This statement is due to the fact that good people are often used for selfish purposes. But wait, can't you take advantage of other people?
For example, a notorious person, having hung honey compliments on him? Or those who are obsessed with money, promising him untold wealth? Nobody is immune from this.
I think that kindness is an advantage, allowing the rhinestone to see who is near you. This is a long-term investment that pays off many times over, as opposed to petty malice that brings only problems in the future. Being kind really pays off.
- To be kind means to be weak, to be humiliated. You were treated badly, but you forgave. They shat in the soul, but you still treat the person well. He didn’t respond with aggression to aggression, which means he couldn’t stand up for himself, and this is “humiliation” and weakness - many people think so, and in vain. Let's talk. How much effort and effort will you need to throw a reciprocal muck at the offender? Almost none. And if you restrain yourself, try to understand him, not to react to barbs? I think this is the hardest one. So where is the power? Only a really strong person can afford to be kind.
Brief Summary
In conclusion, I note that being kind is not so easy. In a world where man is a wolf to man, selfishness, alienation, and emotional deafness flourish.
Material values are higher than moral ones: because of them, even the closest people become strangers. To make the world a better place, everyone must start with themselves, and not point it out to another.
I repeat once again (and hundreds of proverbs and sayings on this topic will confirm my idea) that being kind (altruistic) - this is a very, very profitable strategy successful survival in any society. People notice everything, remember and will definitely pay tribute to you. Nothing else can win the same location. Nothing!
Good luck to you! See you soon on the blog pages site
You may be interested
What is mercy and how to develop this quality in yourself What is a thesis and examples of abstracts for writing What is good (its essence) - the relationship of good and evil Kindness and cruelty - how to write a final essay (selection of arguments, topics and example of work) What is a person's character - traits, types, types and strength of character Personification is the art of bringing the inanimate to life. 
Altruism - what is it and is it profitable to be an altruist What are social norms - their types and examples from life Aphorisms are a treasury of human wisdom What is compassion - the benefits of its manifestation in everyday life Humane - what is it, what is humanity, who are humanists and what are their distinguishing features
Essay on the topic: What is good for me?
Good is a blessing that is honest and useful, all that the duty of a person, citizen, family man requires from us.
This is when we do something and do not demand anything in return, self-interest is absent. We can move an elderly person across the road, or give up a seat in transport, but this happens extremely rarely. Good people themselves have little faith that young people can be kind. Young teenagers are no longer raised as they used to be, and society is becoming violent.
What is kindness? Kindness is the most beautiful thing on earth. People have forgotten about their earthly purpose - to do good, to love their neighbor as themselves. They forgot about the existence of a universal moral rule: "Do not do to another what you do not wish for yourself." Too slowly we return to the lost spirituality. Often you feel a desire to avenge an insult or a need to thank you with a kind deed for the attention shown to you. In the first case restrains prudence, in the second - laziness. And the taste of true kindness remains unknown. Now not everyone can help a person in trouble. Helping loved ones was once an integral part of the tradition.
“A kind person is not the one who knows how to do good, but the one who does not know how to do evil,” said V. Klyuchevsky. For me, kindness is a UNSELF HELP TO PEOPLE.
Kindness is those feelings that cause joy in the heart. You need to listen to your heart.
To be kind, one must treat everyone with love, with joy, see only goodness in all people. If it doesn’t work out, you need to learn this, try to improve, you saw something bad in someone, then you need to find something justifying in order to finally treat people positively.
There is also a very effective way to find a very kind person, and try to imitate him.
I have many friends and they are all very good to me.
I try to be kind, because for me to be kind means to be in good relations with people, to reckon with others, to be able to yield to them. But only by comparing opposites can one understand what good is, so there is no good without evil.
Kindness is the conscious act of kindness. A candle loses nothing if another candle is lit from it, but allows other candles to do something good.
Everyone has their own motives for kindness, someone cannot ignore the sufferer, someone cares about the assessment, public opinion, someone thinks about the effect of an act, someone cares that kindness reaches its destination.
Being kind is not as easy as it seems, because at every step if you say a rude word or hurt something, you can offend a person.
If we talk in general about good, then good is what the world rests on, because if there were no good, there would be no peace on earth, friendship, joy, friends and everything that we value.
good kindness