Good

A Powerful Word Full of Meaning and Purpose.

Stoic philosophy is in vogue right now, and in some sense that’s not a bad thing, as it leans towards positivity, resilience, and change. However, much of Stoic motivation tends to be paper-thin once you dust off the surface: “Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one.” (Marcus Aurelius). Exactly.

But wait a minute — what exactly is a “good man”? Or more precisely, what does the word “good” actually mean? If we don’t know the answer to that key question, then Marcus’ grand statement — “be a good man” — is reduced to words on paper. And how can you really build a meaningful life on that?

Don’t get me wrong: this absence of understanding the true meaning of key words, in their correct context, is not limited to the Stoics. Ask any atheist and similar platitudes — like working for the good of mankind — will be rolled out, again with very little substance behind the definition of “good”.

As I said, there are many similar words that lack clear understanding when it comes to motivational purpose and meaning philosophies. But let’s start with the word “Good”, because answering this question will help shift our view of the world to a much deeper perspective.

“Be good.” (E.T.)

One of my fondest memories of growing up is sitting in a dark movie theatre with my grandmother, who took my younger sister and me to see E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. I am 12 years old, sitting with ice-cream and the smell of the cinema in my nostrils. My Grandma proudly watches over both of us, handing us popcorn as we sink into burgundy seats. The opening credits fade allowing us to enter the cinematic world of a night-time alien chase through a dark, damp forest.

For a young boy, in an age absent of on-demand movies, it doesn’t get any better (correction: the opening scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark the year before was way cooler). Spielberg’s classic alien movie has found a lifetime cosy place in my memory — not only because of the fond memories of my grandmother, but because the movie itself is a classic.

Instantly, I can recall two sayings from E.T.’s croaky voice: “E.T. phone home” and “Be good”. Both sayings were imitated for months afterwards in the school playground and throughout our childhood. “Be good” was E.T.’s parting phrase to the young Drew Barrymore, setting up the tear-jerking end scene that closes the cinematic masterpiece.

These two parting words made sense, especially when directed at the youngest, most innocent child — full of promise and potential — and yet intrinsically aware, as E.T. seems to be, that life possesses many pitfalls in which one can “not” be good. And if you’re not good, what happens to your potential?

I am reminded of this childhood memory more and more these days as the search for meaning intensifies and the call to find purpose in our lives grows louder and louder. We seem to be shipwrecked off the coast of life after boarding the century-long exploration into the self, only to realise that the self is not the answer — purpose is. To live a purposefully good life that will make us happy. And so we struggle ashore looking for that purpose: beaten, exhausted, lost, searching for that one thing to point to that will make us happy — our purpose.

And this is all very well and heading in the right direction. Yet, for me, there seem to be some important ideas and concepts left in the wake.

As mentioned above, there are far too many ideals being sprouted about, like “aim towards what is good”. But what is the notion of “good”? It seems to be a key part of finding the answer to the entire purpose equation, and yet time and again it is glossed over — left undefined — lending itself to a weak interpretation as something merely “positive” (rather than “negative”).

Understanding what “good” actually is could not be more important. It has ramifications for how we view all aspects of life. What is your idea of love, for example? Thomas Aquinas defines love as: “To love is to will the good of the other.” There’s that word again.

In fact, if you listen closely to any psychology, philosophy, or motivational discourse, the word “good” will always pop up. But what does it actually mean to be good? Or to aim or strive for the good? To declare something good for all, or good for mankind?

If this notion of good is not understood, then grandiose statements or motivational speeches become shallow-deep, placing at risk the very premises of what is trying to be conveyed — no matter how positive — and risk being missed altogether.

Conversely, if there is a clear understanding of the word “good”, it can not only shed light on your relationships, but deepen them, radically change how you perceive and interact with others, and ultimately help you realise your full potential — providing meaning to your life that is almost unfathomable.

The good news (pun intended) is that there is a deep historical understanding of what Goodness is, how it can be applied, and where it leads.

“To be or not to be — that is the question.” (Shakespeare, Hamlet)

Hamlet continues by saying, “For who would bear the whips and scorns of time?” Indeed. To live or to die — which would be better? Especially when one is in an existential crisis, a condition that time inevitably bestows upon us all.

However, the question posed by Hamlet, “to be or not to be”, points to a deeper definition of “good” than a pithy dictionary explanation: “very satisfactory, enjoyable, pleasant, or interesting” (Cambridge Dictionary). The definition we are after, however, is an ontological one — that is, concerned with being itself.

The Greek philosopher Aristotle determined that “Good” and “Being” are one and the same, stating: “Everything that is, is good because it is.” The extension of this logic is that Goodness (or Being), found via creation, is derived from a Supreme Good. If something is created, it is good, and its goodness flows from the Supreme Good.

Approximately 1,500 years later, St Thomas Aquinas agreed with Aristotle that “Being” and “Goodness” are one and the same. However, for Aquinas, the Supreme Good is God, who, through His creation, diffuses His Goodness.

For those not religiously inclined, the mention of creation — and in particular the Genesis creation story — might be enough to stop reading. However, for a deeper understanding of Goodness beyond Aristotle’s framework, it is important to grasp the concept of God creating out of nothing (ex nihilo), as this was a major point of difference between Aristotle and Aquinas.

Simon Oliver points out: “For Aquinas, all things (created) are teleologically — that is, oriented toward an end goal — directed towards one focus, namely being itself.” God is all Being — He is all Goodness, all Being — which is then given freely (through love and grace) to all of His creation.

Or, to put it simply, nothing exists outside of God. Creation exists only because of God, for Him, and for us to partake in His creation and, ultimately, His divine glory.

On this basis, the Genesis creation story of the Bible can be outlined as follows: as things come into Being out of nothing, they are therefore good:

“God saw that the light was good …”

“God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.”

“The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good”

“God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.”

“So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”

“God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.”

“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”

“God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.”

It was “good” because it came into Being. It was “very good” because creation had come into perfected Goodness, whereas before it was “formless and empty” (chaos). It was perfect because it was harmonious with God, meaning both creation and God were in harmony and therefore Good.

Of course, this perfected Goodness was altered with the Fall, which is nothing other than a deviation away from the perfected, harmonious Good — evil is anti-Good. However, created things are still intrinsically Good, because Being is the same as Good. The difference after the Fall is that our Goodness now corrupted but still has the potential to become perfect Good.

In other words, things created like dogs, birds, fish, trees, and even things like rocks are all Good (and have the potential to reach perfect Being), even though nature can sometimes be viewed as anything but Good. In some respects, it can appear violent and unforgiving. A lion hunting and killing an antelope is perfected Good — the lion is acting out its perfect Being.

Man, however, is different. We have been blessed with choice (free will). We are not robotic; we hang between the gulf of the material world and the spiritual world, and so we need to address our Goodness both materially and spiritually.

On this note, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth (found via the intellect) and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed towards God, our beatitude (our happiness).”

“It is not by the individuality in us that we approach truth; it is in virtue of a participation in the universal. This universal, which is at one and the same time the true and the good, cannot be honoured as the true — we cannot enter into intimate union with it, discover its traces, and yield ourselves to its mighty sway — unless we recognise and serve it equally as the good.” (A.G. Sertillanges)

A.G. Sertillanges wrote in his classic book, The Intellectual Life, that Truth and Goodness are aligned — the closer you get to Truth, the closer you are to Goodness, and vice versa. The more Goodness you enact, the nearer Truth lies — just on the other side of the summit.

It is our intellect that enables us to seek both Truth and Goodness. We engage the intellect through contemplation, arriving at Truth, and we engage the intellect through virtuous living, arriving at Goodness.

At the apex, where Truth and Goodness meet, we find Beauty. And it is at this summit that we discover God as the fountain of all Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. If we engage the intellect toward Truth and Goodness, we are also becoming spiritually awakened, and in doing so we can see Truth, Goodness, and Beauty in all of creation.

It is this ability of man to use his intellect to discern what is Good and what is not that assists us in moving towards our perfection.

“It is clear that we lack an adequate concept of evil … because we lack any adequate concept of good.”

(Alasdair MacIntyre)

How do you discern evil if you have little concept of what Good is? This is a paramount question, because free will means you have control over your life — you are not programmed to automatically love God, nor are you programmed to automatically act towards your true nature, that is, Goodness. We have choices.

For Aquinas, evil was not something created in and of itself; rather, it was the loss of a quality or attribute that was originally present. In other words, evil is anti-Good — a corruption of the created Good.

This is a key thing to realise, because for both Aristotle and Aquinas, creation is in motion, meaning it is moving towards something — its telos. It has a beginning and an end. This means that everything has “potential” to realise its full Being.

For example, an acorn seed has latent “potential”: it can grow into a sapling, then into a small tree, and finally into its full potential — its Being, or perfected Goodness — as a large oak tree.

Likewise, humans possess their “potential” Good at conception, moving through foetus, baby, toddler, child, teenager, and adult, and arriving at their full potential after life, where we find beatitude (happiness) with God.

This “potential”, however, is reliant on other factors. For the oak tree, the amount of water and sunlight it receives plays a part in whether it reaches its full Goodness. Likewise, for human beings, the choices we make play a significant role in whether we reach our full Goodness.

The more choices we make that motion us away from our natural orientation towards Goodness (God), the less we realise our full human potential. In other words, not motioning towards the Good is participating in anti-Good — evil — sinning against God, against Goodness Himself. It is heading in the opposite direction of our purpose as human beings.

The hierarchy of Goodness

As noted above, one of the gifts given to man by God, as a condition of free will, is intellect. This enables man to discern what is right and wrong, so that he can act towards the Good.

For Aristotle, this engagement of the intellect was viewed as the highest Good available to man (his happiness), which meant that there are other things categorised as lower goods, such as food and shelter. Aristotle argues that man must obtain enough lower goods in order to relieve himself of the burdens of life, thereby allowing sufficient time to contemplate and engage the intellect.

Aquinas would expand on this, noting that a lower good — say, food — could impede a higher good, or it could serve it. The old saying, “the wise man eats to live; the epicure lives to eat”, is a case in point.

Further to this, God is the Alpha and Omega of Goodness — Goodness flows out from God and returns to God. This meant that, for Aquinas, the whole cosmos is “bound together in an indescribably complex system of mutual action and interaction” — or, as the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it, “everything is good for some other thing, and everything has its proper end in the great whole.”

This idea of a hierarchical Goodness — beginning and ending with God — goes some way in explaining the troubling question of why God “lets” bad things happen. In simple terms, we, as individuals, have no view of the vast cosmos of Goodness, nor of how one act of anti-Good relates to the Good of the whole.

By way of example, in the Acts of the Apostles, James is stoned to death for proclaiming Christ risen. Regardless of whether one is Christian or not, the act of stoning someone to death is horrendous. How could an all-loving “Good” God allow such a thing to happen to one of His believers?

The stoning of James* was a turning point in Christianity. The act scattered the other followers of Christ, in fear, to all parts of the Roman Empire. Yet in doing so, the Christian message flourished, rapidly changing the lives of millions for the better. Goodness will always outdo evil in the end, even if, at the time, we cannot comprehend how, when, or why.

Look no further than the crucifixion as the meta-version of this truth: Goodness itself was insulted, beaten, flogged, and nailed to a tree to suffer an excruciating and shameful death — only to defeat death, rise, and spiritually connect with us, saving us through grace, which is the other factor available to us in achieving fully perfected Goodness.

(* the atheist reading this example could state the rapid spread of Christianity might be very well for mankind and society, but what about poor James, stoned to death? The Christian of course points to the eternal kingdom and the perfected Being of James now in complete beatitude with our Creator … “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. — John 15:13).

“I AM Who I AM” (Exodus 3:14)

Now all this might sound heady and abstract, but how does this play out practically? Both Aristotle and Aquinas pointed towards the virtues as the means of acting towards our true beings (which is also the source of our true happiness). Christ’s Sermon on the Mount is His textbook teaching on the ultimate happiness that can be realised and should be striven for — it is no accident that each beatitude begins with “happy are …”, or, in its divinely oriented form, “blessed are …”.

This means that any one of our current goals, or our defined purpose, can still exist. However, we now have the choice (free will) to overlay them with virtues that are directed and aligned towards the Good (that is, God). In other words, if we are made in the image of God (Goodness), and God dispensed His Goodness throughout all of creation (as an act of love), then our purpose and goals should also align with the very idea of God’s Goodness. That is, we should dispense Goodness not inwards towards the self, but outwards towards others.

This lies at the very heart of Christian teaching — Jesus’ golden rule to “love one another as I have loved you”; the denial of the self. Given this, and our ontological understanding of Goodness, we can now revisit Aquinas’ definition of love:

“To love is to will the good of the other.”

What depth this definition now has — to will the “Good” of the other; to desire the most profound happiness for another, found only in the Creator — the ultimate happiness. It is to will that the other fully realises their potential, what it means to be fully human, to be fully alive, and, by extension, fully loved by the divine Creator.

This “willing the good of the other” is found embedded in the seven virtues — the framework within which we can overlay our purposes and goals in life: the four cardinal virtues defined by Aristotle — Prudence, Justice, Courage, and Temperance — followed by the three Christian virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity. All these virtues look outwards beyond the self to the other; they are designed to put others first and lift them towards their full potential.

So in practice — for the man or woman who has a defined purpose of being rich in life, be it for security, power, or privilege — to attain the dictionary meaning of “good”, and to find their riches as “satisfactory, enjoyable, pleasant, or interesting” — if we instead replace this with the ontological, Thomistic definition and apply a virtuous life to the same purpose, the desire to be rich suddenly takes on a new character.

It becomes rich to lift others out of poverty; rich to support and assist others; rich to provide justice to those who have none; rich to share knowledge through social projects. Suddenly, that purpose and meaning in life that we all seek is alive and has real purpose — real meaning — as it is not only directed towards others, but paradoxically draws you towards your full potential — your full Goodness.

To define Goodness, or not to define it?

The century-long exploration into the self is dead. To quote Bishop Barron, “your life is not about you.” Purpose and meaning in life are what we long for; we’ve just been looking in all the wrong places.

Some will want to continue on this self-inward-looking path, or choose not to embrace the Christian notion of Goodness, perhaps stopping at Aristotle — which is a start, I guess. However, whatever definition remains, if God is not the fountain of all Goodness, will ultimately be paper-thin.

But time is short. Our lives are lilies of the field, and there is a ready-made framework at our disposal that served Western mankind for centuries. We stand in the 21st century on the shoulders of giants of antiquity — men and women far more intelligent and virtuous than ourselves — whose art, music, architecture, and daily life were all directed towards the Good.

And what accomplishments! What beauty!

And yet here we stand, staring down an abyss of technological advancement, with little understanding of where it will lead. Artificial intelligence is not, by default, Good, nor is it intelligent, nor can it relate to the ontological notion of Good. But if we, as humans, have a clear notion of what Goodness is, then artificial intelligence could transform our world into a thing of social wonder, like nothing history has ever seen.

But if we continue to grope around in the darkness, trying to define meaning and purpose without a solid foundation of Goodness, artificial intelligence can only lead one way — towards misery and a hellish landscape the world has not yet contemplated.

To finish on a positive note — under the Christian framework, we are all equal. There is no race or division, power or privilege. There is no need for quasi-religious mantras like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, because at the most fundamental level we all possess embedded, God-given Goodness, meaning we are all naturally oriented towards Goodness.

It is now time to embrace the things that make us complete human beings, to turn our potential into a fully realised purpose — a life of meaning wrapped in true love that puts the good of the other first.

This is not out of reach; it is simply something that needs to be proclaimed, adopted, and lived and breathed. This is where purpose lies, meaning thrives, and true happiness reigns.

© 2026 telosRising. All rights reserved.

Author: DW Fraser

22 January 2024