Here’s one I’m pondering that I could use your input on - is it easier to find someone (namely Hitler, in western culture at least) as a shorthand for, or represents the ultimate symbol of, evil than it is for the reverse?
Who would use suggest fills the role for good as Adolf does for evil, the inverse of Hitler if you will, that would be as readily understood? My own suggestion would be Martin Luther King, Jr. but I don’t know how many would agree.
Mr. Rogers
Mother Teresa?
Maybe Gandhi? I know only a little about him, but he’s a pretty common go-to example of a non-violent good guy.
I think Gandhi is the most commonly cited (even though there are some controversies about him). Maybe Nelson Mandela. MLK is an American thing. Not that he’s unheard of elsewhere, but I don’t see a non American mentioning him as an example of goodness, and more generally outside the specific context of US civil rights.
And many people despise mother Theresa (myself included).
Fred Rogers.
That’d be my go-to for shorthand purposes. Mr. Rogers was a swell guy but I don’t know if he has the same international recognition.
Both Gandhi and Mother Teresa will get you strong negative reactions by many who have knowledge of their lives. You won’t get that many strong positive reactions about Hitler, The Producers notwithstanding.
Goodness and virtue are much more relative than evil. It’s a lot more difficult to get people to agree on what constitutes are “purely good” person than a “purely evil” person.
In terms of pure numbers, it’s hard to argue that Norman Borlaug shouldn’t be near the top of the list.
Jonas Salk
On the other hand, even those people should understand the shorthand and anyone who takes “She thinks she’s Mother Teresa or something” as an invitation for a lecture can be safely ignored anyway.
Yes, but as I interpret the OP, he wasn’t asking who genuinely was a good person, so much as someone who is a widely regarded example or symbol of a good person.
In some contexts, Jesus works as “a shorthand for, or represents the ultimate symbol of” good (e.g. as in WWJD). But with Jesus, the divinity aspect complicates matters, plus there’s the taint of all the not-so-good that has been done in his name.
Their research may have saved many lives, but I doubt that all that many people these days would even recognize their names, let alone what they did. And although I know who they were I don’t know enough offhand about their lives to know if they were exemplary human beings. If you told someone that they were as good a person as Norman Borlaug the reaction would probably be confusion rather than being flattered.
That unknown Chinese kid who stood in front of the tanks in Tiananmen Square.
My first thought.
Before I opened this thread, just from reading the title, I decided on Fred Rogers. Mostly because he liked me just the way I am.
What happens if we limit it to living persons? Any suggestions?
Aung San Suu Kyi? Jimmy Carter?
Saint Francis of Assisi.
That’s a function of public ignorance rather than a comment on the impactfulness of Borlaug’s work.
However, I did skim the OP and see that he wants a “symbol” for goodness and it’s true that even though Borlaug is credited with saving a billion people from starving to death, most people do not know who he is or what he did.