DrTyore;373212 wroteI think this is your problem.
Is someone with a lower IQ, and therefore lower earning potential a "less good" person than someone who has a high IQ and high paying job, who can therefore give plenty of money? Is someone in a wheelchair and needs assistance for many of life's commonalities a drain on those that tend to them, and therefore a bad person? Is someone who is completely average, but does nothing but things for their own selves a bad person? What if their own interests are their family and friends?
I don't think comparing people to one another is an ideal way to determine or track one's "goodness". The best motivator is intrinsic - it has to come from you. If your internal goal is to be pretty, then you will be more likely to be pretty through being healthy and caring about your exterior looks. If your intrinsic values trend towards gathering wealth, then you will be more likely to gather wealth. If your self-goal is to at the end of the day be able to say you're happy with yourself because you helped others, well you'll do that too.
Now as to which if any of these is better or worse than the others, that's up to one's values. Someone I think is a good person is not someone you would consider necessarily good. I may respect the hell out of PK Subban for his skill, but many people piss and moan about his attitude. I may give respect to people who are earnest, caring people that others may consider deficient because they aren't overly intelligent. Hell, Eva Braun loved Hitler, and to her he was a hero.
"Good" and "Bad" people are constructs of your own value system. Your value system is your own, but it is / has been influenced by your upbringing and the people who helped raise you. One of the most frustrating things I see in and out of people is an
astounding lack of unbiased introspection. It's a scary idea to look at oneself and really question your comfy idea of what is and is not right, and often much easier to
default to the catchphrases and quips of others.
Poker is a stunningly powerful mirror for this... people play for years and get no better. Myself, I haven't improved much, and I can say it's honestly because I haven't the interest in being more than an average player. But I hear people lie to themselves over and over by saying they want to improve their game, and just write off losses as bad luck. So the CPF / philosophy crossover isn't a surprising one.
In the end, this scenario means nothing, unless your value system is high on money. But that's like asking who's a better athlete, Usain Bolt or
Hakuhō (link provided, but essentially the record holder for most Sumo contest wins in a year).
Mark
First of all thank you for your time to reply with a lot of knowledge.
For the first part: I think you are putting limitations on people, A person with a lower IQ could find a way to make a high earning if he works hard to achieve it. If he works hard enough by doing whatever is needed to make him better than the guy with a high IQ he would succeed. (study harder, read books, memorize, practice a skill... whatever it takes to be better) same goes for a guy with a higher IQ, if the guy with the lower IQ surpass him and starts getting a higher income he has to work harder.. this is what makes the world a better place, humans, societies and nations compete and strive for the better.
For the guy on the wheel chair with people helping him, if he finds a way to live without the help of the others, then he is better than the other people on wheel chairs. I'm not saying he is bad, he isn't but he could be better.
Same goes for the guy who does things for his self-interest, he isn't bad but if he goes for both self-interest and social-interest he is a better person.(none of them are bad but they can always strive for better)
Things could be comparable and i believe its a good thing to compare similar situations and strive for the better.
I agree with you that when you are self-satisfied you don't need to change anything with yourself, you are happy with what you are doing and where you are at, but looking at better people is good. Poker as an example, if i'm the best player in the world(my self-satisfaction is to be the best) then i wouldn't improve my game unless someone is trying to better than me. If you are satisfied with being 500th in the world then I'll try to be the 500th and if i get to 501st ill work hard to go back to 500th (because that is where i want to be, self-satisfaction).
As for the scenario itself, I think now i know the right answer. The right answer is that it depends on how you look at both these people and both could be the right answer. Now i understand why it was a silly question. I've always thought of situations as right and wrong but sometimes there is no right and wrong answers.
Also i didn't understand the part i put in bold in your quote if you could explain it with easier vocabulary if possible.
For the last part, It is pretty hard to compare who is better from two different sports, but its possible to compare things with similar positions. Bolt would be a better athlete in running and hakuho would be a better athlete in sumo wrestling. You can compare two soccer players or whatever two people in the same sport and its possible. If not then how do they award the best player of the year in a certain sport?