When one asks who would be considered good, one would typically get three kinds of answers: the first is one which would make it possible for them to also be considered good because everyone wishes to be seen as good, the second is one which would make the good person beneficial to himself because all desire that they benefit from the existence of others, and the third would be of the religious kind which has been the way that one can universalize this goodness to all across a group which holds to the same view of goodness though there is much more to it and it is not as clean-cut as I conceived it.
The Corruption of Mixed Motivations
And it is that these three can be mixed in one’s view and usually the third religious moral impulse does not benefit well with mixing with others because in this mix that we see hypocrisy and empty ritualism and uncalled for moral rigidity and that the third only is pure when it is done for its own sake or rather for the sake of its divine source. A religious moralism is only good when it understands fully why it is the way and it is and the dissatisfaction of the religious impulse usually comes when the sake of the moralism is not grasped well either by negligence of the adherent or by the design of the religion and in that case the religion itself would be corrupt.
The pursuit of virtues throughout the history of thought was always one of religious intent, because any other approach either falls to radical self-utilitarianism or to external acts of morality empty of any inward good intent and so it is with the religious conceptions of one and how he acts with the knowledge of them that he is to be judged about his morality and whether he has progressed to higher levels of participation of the source of the Good, the Good himself.
The Insidious Nature of Corruption
Yet the first two approaches do more than merely fall short—they actively sway people away from true goodness. When someone begins with that instinctual religious impulse toward genuine goodness, the self-referential desire to be seen as good and the instrumental calculation of benefit can actually corrupt that original impulse, redirecting the natural movement toward conscious participation in the Good into something that serves the ego or utilitarian calculation instead.
This corruption is particularly insidious because these approaches can mimic genuine virtue while fundamentally reorienting its source and purpose. Someone might perform the same outward actions but now from a corrupted motivation—seeking social approval or personal advantage rather than responding to the Good itself.
Unconscious Participation in the Good
For goodness itself plays a part in letting some unknowingly participate in it, and it might even guide them to know it consciously if one is not swayed away from it by these corrupting influences. Those who act virtuously from genuine moral instinct—even without explicit religious framework—are already in relationship with the Good through what can be called an instinctual religious impulse, positioned for this kind of progressive disclosure from unconscious to conscious participation.
The Need for Honest Self-Reflection
One must be discerning and watchful and self-reflect on his own motivations and actions in order for him to be on the path of goodness. This self-reflection requires transparent honesty—a willingness to see one’s own mixed motives without either despair or self-congratulation. Yet even recognizing these mixed motives can be considered a good, for that recognition itself participates in goodness through alignment with reality rather than illusion.
Indeed, moral despair is driven from the first impulse—it reveals an attachment to one’s own moral status rather than to the Good itself. When someone falls into despair upon recognizing their mixed motives, they make their own goodness the central concern, creating a double corruption that centers on the self rather than the Good. Simple, honest recognition of mixed motives—without the dramatic emotional overlay of despair—is actually a form of freedom that removes the ego-investment in moral purity and allows for a more direct relationship with the Good.
The Telos of True Excellence
This telos of the one pursuing true excellence is to recognize where the fullness of the Good dwells in whatever human endeavors he takes on, and to align his will to it to the most extreme he can, and in that way one is not content with going by as he is or trying to just be “good” but rather he is transformed by interacting with the source of the Good itself. And this is not an individualistic effort rather that the horizontal relationship with others informs the vertical one and the vertical relationship informs the horizontal one.