26
votes
What makes someone a "decent" person to you?
I'd define decent as the minimum expectation I have for having someone in my life. I use the term a lot, but I had never been clear on what I mean by it. I think for me its that the person broadly reciprocates the work I put into the relationship, both in kind and degree, unless I explicitly say otherwise. I'd say most of my interpersonal problems would fit under this; mainly being expected to put in a lot of emotional effort, and either they don't reciprocate it at all, they unambiguously do not match it or they ignore me when I tell them I don't care about gifts and act like the infrequent gift makes us equal.
But that's me, and I expect there are many more varied expectations from y'all. So, what make some a decent person to you?
My minimum standard is someone who doesn't attempt to subvert or impede another decent person's pursuit of happiness. In other words, live and let live.
It's an easy standard to meet, but so few actually do.
This actually sums it up for me as well. If you are selfish and you'd make someone's life harder to ease your own, I don't like you. Whether it's at work or just not holding the door for someone 5 feet behind you.
On top of that, my general rule is that you do you, as long it doesn't hurt anyone. I guess that feeds on the first bit, but that's it.
I'm not 100% sure you're allowed to use the word being defined in the definition, how do you determine if the person you're encountering is decent?
This looks more like recursion to me. The definition of decent isn't hampered by it referring to others who meet the same definition-- anyone else who doesn't attempt to subvert or etc etc.
...but subvert who? You're describing a loop that has no definition.
People who don't talk at the theatre.
Empathy and being kind to their fellow humans.
This is key. I also very strongly consider how they treat animals. My occupation requires me to make judgment calls about people on the regular and how they treat their pet is a key indicator of what kind of person they are.
Cosign this. I know as pointed out in another comment that decency is a subjective standard but for me it's empathy, respect for the humanity of others, and kindness. And those three flow together and are pretty inseparable to me. If you dehumanize people you're losing empathy for them and not generally going to be kind.
A decent person is someone who's morals, norms, personal opinions, ethics, etc. align with my own to some degree. The more they match, the more decent I consider them to be.
The downside to this is if you (I'm not saying you) is a total scumbag, with zero morals, you will also find those people the decent type you want to hang with.
It's almost like humans like social circles to be similar in thoughts...
That's exactly my point! We can try and describe what a decent person is, but it's such a subjective and personal thing. We've been guided by millions of years of biological and social conditioning to connect with those who are similar to us, and expel those who are too different.
I meant my comment as a sort of tongue in cheek analysis, but I do feel it's the only real objective answer. My subjective answer is more along the lines of what has already been stated in this thread, so I figured this was a good way to spark conversation in a different direction.
You make it seem there is no reason to attempt to realign yourself instead.
How do you mean?
Agree with many of the other sentiments here, especially Kru's and Smoontjie's.
One thing I find interesting compared to your definition (and, hopefully I've not compleltely misinterpreted) is that I'm not particularly bothered by people who have different (lower) levels of investment in a relationship/friendship,so long as it's not entirely selfish taking with zero give or respect.
I figure we're all in our own journeys; who am I to judge if someone has less energy to dedicate because they have other things going on in their life, so long as we have a positive time when we do connect, however brief that may be.
That might also be because I have much less energy than I'd need to fully invest in the friendships I'd like to maintain. So, perhaps I'm that person.
It's someone who strives to be one. I consider it a journey, not a destination. We all have our follies, some days we show it more than others. None of us are a constant anything. We just react to what life throws our way. What's important is to try to recognize and amend our follies, whether by introspection or listening to those around us and being open to criticism.
Empathetic, ethical, rational, kind, honest, and can laugh at themselves. But those are just words, decency is proved over time through behaviour.
There's an old joke about there being two types of people: those who divide people into two types, and those who don't.
Somewhere around the midpoint of my life, this thread's question is the one I mostly stopped asking, as part of a broad shift in world view. There is nothing quite so persistent as the urge to partition people into those we approve and disapprove of. Although the old simplistic good/evil dichotomy is getting passé for must of us these days, we revisit the idea with whatever subtlety we can manage, and hold to the right to judgment like some kind of existential lifeline.
About all I can say with honesty anymore is that there are people whose company I prefer. But that's hardly a question of who the Good Ones are.
I think this is the direction I'm trending too.
Look, I definitely have the propensity to be a jack-ass every now and again, but I think most everyone I know would still consider me "a decent person." So what does that make the definition of "decent" then? Not evil?
I think most of the non-decent people I know are just misguided. I think its pretty rare that "shitty people" are shitty because they're actively choosing to be. So I don't mind absolving them of that responsibility. Does that make them pleasant to be around? No. So I avoid them. Its not my job to realign them.
While we're on the subject, there are plenty of "decent" people I avoid too. Because frankly, they just annoy me. So am I still decent? Is that even relevant to this discussion?
There are people I rely on, and people I try not to rely on. I don't think that I'm partitioning them when I say that, but maybe I am? I think it mainly depends on circumstance and context.
One thing's for true: Conversations like this make me feel like a sociopath.
P.S. This comment started as a direct response to yours, but quickly unraveled into its current rambly state. Sorry about that.
I have adopted a kind of Pyrrhonic attitude of just not thinking anything of anyone because there are too many possible variables in a person's life that could affect why they act the way they do.
There's so many movies and books and TV shows that are constantly trying to juke you out with twists and secrets. You think a person is one way because of the things you see of them, but then the writer reveals something that's supposed to change your perspective on it, like "haha! Didn't see that coming did you? Don't you feel silly for judging so prematurely? Just goes to show you, huh? Maybe you should be more understanding/sympathetic to strangers."
So now whenever I see someone do anything I reflexively think that I don't know enough about the person to have any idea if they are good or bad. So whatever guess I take is worthless and shouldn't be taken with any certainty.
Basic civic responsibility: paying taxes owed, wanting society to function smoothly (social safety nets, infrastructure maintenance, criminal justice), etc.. Basically, not being a toxic misanthrope who self-isolates, is itching for an excuse to legally murder someone, and actively wants society and government to collapse. Fairly low bar, I know.
Bonus: is capable of understanding the value of utilitarian ethics and is willing to consider them when explained, even if they don't exercise the thought process themselves.