I guess it depends whether you believe the good people do (ie, running Yad Vashem, looking for word of a relative, etc) happens because G-d made those people good.

Am I on the right track?

Colt! G-d made those people with a chioce! They can choose to be good. Or not.

Humans are wired to be good

There is a notion within Judaism of a "shalih mitzvah" - an emissary of a mitzvah (or, emissary of a commandment). For example, if I give you money to give to someone in need, you are a shalih mitzvah (something like an assist in basketball). Jewish tradition claims that the shalih mitzvah earns all the rewards of the one who actually performs the it, i.e. they are both fully responsible.

Perhaps I should have made it clearer that I, for one, don't think G-d chooses individuals to be good (and that includes those chosen to act as a light unto nations - choosing to neglect that is apparently quite possible).

But can there be good without G-d? That's what I was trying to get at. Even if individuals have chosen to act as they did, can G-d ever be detached from those acts?

Patrick: Humans are wired to be good ...

Sometimes I wonder if that wiring is up to code.

Patrick, that is not strictly true. Homo sapiens is wired to be "good" to a clann, tribe, kin-grouping, whatever, and to be competitive towards outsiders, other clanns, other kin-groupings, religions, ethnicities, whatever.

I think David's answer is the correct one. And very beautiful, also. :)

Jinnderella - Hmm. I don't think that being competitive is incompatible with being good or generous. And I'm not sure what evidence you have that humans are wired to be competitive towards "outsiders." It's difficult to imagine how that would work, given that whether someone is an outsider or an insider is a matter of perspective. So, if you think of yourself as a White, you may see African-Americans as outsiders, but if you think of yourself as an American, you may not. (If you're interested, there's an article making this point, by John Dovidio, Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, December 2004.)

It's possible, of course, that we're wired to be competitive with anyone we currently and contingently see as an outsider. We might not be competitive with the same person later, if our perspective changed, although this would have made the evolution of such a disposition rather more complicated. But Rushton's point in the research I linked to was that this wiring to be good explains the outpouring of aid for Tsunami victims. Most of that aid , of course, was given to outsiders. Your theory predicts that we would have rejoiced in the increased competitive advantage over those outsiders the tsunami gave us.

I united them by designing the I/O board that went into the world's first BBS. The beginning of making computers and data bases ubiquitous.

My father united them by fighting in the Pacific. Which let others fight in Europe.

Patrick,

In primitive societies the level of goodness is dictated by the genetic relationship of the parties. The more genes they share the less competitive.

This has been worked out scientifically.

What made the Jews different 3,500 years ago was the practice of treating all peaceful humans equally (at least before the law and in commerce).

The Islamics that seek rule these days accord non-believers second class status.

M. Simon - "In primitive societies the level of goodness is dictated by the genetic relationship of the parties. The more genes they share the less competitive.

"This has been worked out scientifically."

I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that the "level of goodness" (presumably, in interpersonal relations) is actually programmed by genetic endowment? In that case, how could we learn our way out of that programming? Or, do you mean that the level of goodness is predictable on the basis of kinship, in which case it would be correlated with genetic endowment but might well be constrained by a cultural variable?

"The more genes they share" the closer the psychological ties, as well - familiarity, frequency of meeting, similarity of language and dialect, similarity of appearance, kinship - all these things would be correlated with sharing of genes.

You're all on the right track. While the grand-daughter's search was the immediate agent, many others contributed to making such a thing possible, both within the Jewish community and (as M. Simon points out) outside of it. Warriors and technologies made it possible. Someone had the idea, and pushed for it. Someone else programmed it, so it would be available.

We can't look into their hearts, but in this case we can say with confidence that many of the "shalih mitzvah" participants were motivated by their conceptions of good. In some cases, a desire to help fulfill the literal promise of Isaiah 56:5 probably played a large role. These people heard a promise from G-d, and took responsibility for their part in making it so.

Which is the real point I'd like to make. "Touched By An angel" is popular, and a welcome show - but I think it's wrong in one very important respect. The show always turns on angels who have to reveal themselves as such, in order to get people to do what they ought to do.

Which is more entertaining and dramatic, I guess, but it sends a warped message. If we want assistance in our daily lives, it doesn't come from ordering an angel up like room service. It comes from each other, from people who take responsibility and ACT on the voice of divine that can be heard within each of us if we're willing to pay attention. THAT is how the hand of the divine works among humankind.

In Hebrew, "mal'ach" is "messenger". Where are the messengers of goodness, and of the divine? All around us, if we only pay attention. Alas that they don't all look and sound like Roma Downey - but on the other hand, thank heavens that gateways to the Spirit reside in so many places.

When we step up and take responsibility as co-creators of the world around us, great things become possible.

Joe wrote: It comes from each other, from people who take responsibility and ACT on the voice of divine that can be heard within each of us if we're willing to pay attention.

One of the most interesting ideas I've come across recently is the exchange fiction, which is the idea that people will give more generously if you provide them with some cover. The paradigm example is the PBS fund-raising appeals, through which for a $200 donation you can get an $8 remaindered coffee-table book. This works - people donate more if you offer them a token in exchange, so that their giving does not appear to be an example of altruism. We're not sure why. It may be that the "norm of self-interest" is at work: we're repeatedly told that most humans are selfish. Princeton psychologist Dale Miller has found that most people aren't selfish, but believe they should be because they're told that everyone else is. If we act unselfishly, we will stand out. If we get a geegaw in exchange for our gift, we can tell ourselves it wasn't altruism. Other psychologists say that the exchange fiction protects us against escalating obligations ("if I gave to X, I should give to Y, too").

My point (I do have one!) is that Joe may have a better explanation for this phenomenon. It's the voice of the divine inside us urging us to give. We can pay attention to that and give, that's fairly easy. But to pay attention and recognize it as the voice of the divine - that's more difficult. Talk about escalation of obligation! It may be easier to believe in an exchange fiction.