What is “goodness?” Webster’s Dictionary defines it as a state of “moral excellence” or “virtue,” but fails to capture the elusive quality of the word. Is something that’s good always good? Can something or someone be mostly but not completely good? Can bad things become good? In the end, it seems that while we can’t say exactly what goodness is, we believe we know it when we see it, and Professor Ruth Grant wants to know exactly why that is.

“The idea of ‘goodness’ is an elusive one,” says Grant, Professor of Political Science and Philosophy and Senior Fellow in the Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University. She has convened a group of faculty from a variety of disciplines, including philosophy, political science, psychology, theology, and classical studies, to study this indefinable state and to determine what and how we think about goodness.

The group is investigating such topics as whether or not there is a universal concept of goodness; the relationships between goodness and innocence, friendship, and altruism; goodness in the context of global crises; and how our emotions and consciousness impact our concepts of goodness and morality.

Egoism and Altruism
Grant herself tackles the topic of altruism. This selfless concern for the welfare of others is not difficult to identify as a “good” quality, especially when it is presented in opposition to egoism. “To act egoistically—to benefit oneself – comes naturally to human beings,” says Grant. “It requires no particular education and deserves no special praise.” In contrast, altruism is seen as a highly revered practice that often exemplifies goodness.

But is altruism always good? Grant doesn’t think so, and she offers the example of the Shel Silverstein book The Giving Tree to explain why. In it, a boy and a tree have a special relationship. The boy plays in the tree’s branches, rests in her shade, and enjoys her fruit. The tree gets great joy out of the boy’s company and his enjoyment of her gifts, and the two share a solid friendship and mutual love. As the boy grows older he neglects the tree, except when he needs her resources. The tree gives all of herself to the boy, until she is nothing but a stump, at which point she is “happy…but not really.” When the boy returns to the tree as an old man needing a place to rest, she offers her stump as a seat and she is happy once again.

Critical response to this story shows a wide range of extremely strong and opposing reactions. Some critics see the tree’s willingness to give everything of herself as an ideal form of goodness. Others consider her selflessness to be masochistic and self-destructive in that it does significant damage to her physical and mental state while encouraging the boy’s selfishness. So is there a point when being good, at least in the altruistic sense, is actually bad?

Grant believes there is. “Nothing can be good that is destructive of psychic health or what we might call ‘flourishing.’ This is the point that divides two conceptions of goodness,” she says. “The altruistic view says goodness is a concern for others that necessitates self-sacrifice. The alternative view says that goodness is caring for oneself as a means to be able to thrive as a human being, which includes caring relationships with others.”

Moral Conversions
But it is not only the definition of goodness that remains a significant question. Grant’s faculty group is also examining the nature of goodness— how it comes and goes, how it responds to circumstance, and how it surfaces in those who were previously considered bad or evil.

David Wong, Susan Fox Beischer and George D. Beischer Professor of Philosophy at Duke, is studying moral conversions, including whether or not it is possible for someone with a poor moral record to become good.

“The hopeful among us would like to believe in the possibility of moral conversion,” Wong says. “I do believe such hope is warranted.”

He offers an example in the case of Oscar Schindler, whose story became widely known through the Thomas Keneally novel Schindler’s Ark and later through the movie Schindler’s List. Schindler was a factory owner and war profiteer with a reputation for being a “swindler” who relied on charm and bribery to get what he wanted. He was also a womanizer who not only cheated on his wife but often did so with little concern for concealing his unfaithfulness.

In the early 1940s, this selfish rogue experienced an about-face and risked his fortune and his life to save more than 1,000 of his Jewish factory workers during the Nazi occupation of Poland, using whatever means necessary.

Most would readily agree that Schindler was “a good man” based on his willingness to sacrifice for the sake of others. But what was the nature of his change? Was he a bad man who did a good deed, or in saving the lives of so many did he become good? Does it matter if the means he used to accomplish that good deed were morally questionable? If he never again did a good deed, would we still consider him a good man?

Wong argues that despite Schindler’s less than moral methods, including his willingness to bribe and deceive others, his change “remains wondrous enough that I am still inclined to call it a conversion.”

Beyond defining what counts as a moral conversion, Wong is also investigating the question of exactly how moral conversions happen. If it is indeed possible for someone’s moral compass to change dramatically for the better, perhaps it’s also possible to find and even create these miraculous opportunities for “becoming good.”

Beyond Goodness
Ultimately the group’s work will result in a forthcoming book on goodness edited by Grant. The project is sponsored by the Kenan Institute for Ethics, and the new book, In Search of Goodness, will serve as a complement to Grant’s 2006 title, Naming Evil, Judging Evil.

Grant sees the book as a way to expand and deepen the discussion of goodness while addressing a growing attention to the subject. “There has been an increase in the emphasis on ethics, and particularly on goodness, in both the academy and general culture,” she says.

She points to work in neuroscience, where scientists are mapping the brain to determine which structures are associated with good behavior. Trends within higher education show that colleges and universities are reassessing their role in the moral development of their students. Even foundations are funding studies to determine whether being good will make a person happy, she says.

Ultimately she hopes the completed book will stimulate further conversation and reflection beyond our usual ways of thinking about goodness.

“I would like to see us move beyond some of our familiar conceptual dichotomies to reach a better understanding of goodness,” she says. “We tend to take for granted that we know what it means and how it operates.”

— Aimee Rodriguez