The term "good person" should not exist. There are only "bad people" and then the rest, with the latter being different from each other. We often wonder if we are doing things right, if we are being good people, or if we are selfish. Starting from the premise that "being good people" is subjective to each person's way of thinking, I will give my opinion on this matter.

What does it mean to be a good person?

The definition of a good person is somewhat ambiguous because everyone associates it with different qualities, but the one that is most often repeated is:

"Do things for others selflessly."

For me, the term "being a good person" is something that should not exist.

I only believe in the existence of bad people, those who "take away the freedom of others" [I will talk about this in another post], and the rest of us are simply people.

To explain my point of view, I'm going to provide two examples:

Imagine we have a person who says the following:

  • For me, the most important thing is myself, and then others. If something doesn't suit me, I won't do it.

And then we have another person who says:

  • For me, the most important thing is to make others happy because that makes me happy.

If you ask yourselves who seems like a better person, you would choose case 2, right?


For the first person, we might think they are selfish, that they only think of themselves, and that others are secondary.

While for the second person, we might think they are "altruistic," that they go out of their way to make others happy.

If you think about it, both prioritize themselves, because in both cases, they do what makes them happy, even though their way of expressing it is different.

Neither the first person is saying that only themselves matter, nor is the second person saying that they themselves are unimportant.

The first person clearly expresses that their happiness comes from themselves, and the second person that it comes from doing things for others.

Although it may seem complicated to understand, if the "good person" (our case number 2) didn't derive happiness from making others happy, then they wouldn't perform those "good deeds" for others.

They do it because it indirectly makes them happy, so in the end, they are also "selfish."

The term "selfish" is also a bit ambiguous because it is associated with something bad, but according to my way of thinking, there is nothing healthier than prioritizing oneself.

In this case, both people prioritize themselves, the first one says it one way, and the second one says it another way, but in practice, both do what they want and what makes them happy, so one is not a "better person" than the other, they just define themselves differently.


Finally, performing altruistic acts, those that help others selflessly, can be considered a way of prioritizing oneself in a broader sense. How is that possible? It's due to the personal satisfaction and well-being you feel after doing things "selflessly" for others.

Imagine for a moment someone who dedicates their time to help in an animal shelter. At first glance, it might seem like they are sacrificing their time and energy for the well-being of the animals, but if we delve deeper, we discover that this person finds a deep sense of satisfaction and joy in their work. In other words, their altruism not only benefits the animals but also fills them with gratitude and happiness.

This example shows how doing good often goes hand in hand with feeling good.

It's not necessarily a selfish act in the traditional sense, where one seeks their own benefit at the expense of others.

When we choose to help others and experience joy in that act, we are prioritizing ourselves even though we may justify it as "altruism."

The key is to find that personal balance that allows you to grow as an individual while contributing to the well-being of others.