I have likely said this before, but I can’t remember where.
Psychology doesn’t really have a term for a good person. They have labels for what in moral terms would be labelled evil–antisocial personality disorder, or sociopath–but nothing comparable on the side of Goodness. It was contemplating this fact which got me interested in the concept of Goodness.
You have well-adjusted. You have psychologically normal. You even have a pyramid of self-actualization. But we can see readily enough how to be more evil; nothing comparable exists, as far as I know, on the plus side.
As an example, I was reading the back cover of some book about a serial killer. Profilers recognized 12 levels of evil. This guy was 13. Some badass stuff. [“What did he do?”, people who bought the book asked. “How did he torture people? Did he eat them? Did he make other people eat them? What was his favorite tool?” This is the cultural world we live in].
Anyway, how would we create 13 levels of love? I have defined evil as taking pleasure in the pain of others. I have defined Goodness as taking pleasure in the happiness of others.
You cannot achieve a goal you do not have, and it seems to me we NEED something like this, and the “science” of psychology has not to my knowledge created it; nor, given the materialistic and evolutionary paradigm within which most of them operate, is it in my view likely any time soon.
Martin Seligman does good work, but when I read his books something is always missing. I know he is an agnostic tending towards atheism, because he said so, but that basic trait also comes out in some intangible trait of his thinking that I feel rather than deduce.
I like Mihaly Csikscentmihalyi [close], too. Perhaps one could combine the experience of Flow with loving-kindness. That would be getting close.