Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
See, I think of "great" as meaning "really good" and "good" as being an ethical word. Ethics is rarely a factor in dealing with loved ones, so I think "great" is undefined when talking about taking bullets for them, and I can't think of a reason why preferring a stranger's life to one's own has any positive or negative ethical value, given that a stran ...[text shortened]... rd, not an ethical one, but I also think the situation is completely analogous.
I'm not clear on your use of 'good' Do you mean 'good' as in lacking intent or action to harm in any way, or is there some positive value to your 'good'? I was thinking about Eudaimonia today and it seems the notion of 'flourishing' as bbarr put forward is a better translation than 'happiness', since not only do I have a hard time understanding what it means to be good, but also because I can understand 'flourishing' better, in reflection of my relativist views.
I don't attribute the term 'good' to greatness since the term is not only too broad, but also because I'm not convinced greatness is an ethical notion. I'm not sure what the necessary conditions of greatness are, but it seems to me that there are acts of greatness which would not fit with your notion of good. Aesthetic greatness is a good place to start. In your definition one man's masterpiece is another man's abhoration, but by mine, both pieces could be great, since they may have exceeded the expected norm.
Firing a bullet could be a great act in some circumstances. Ethically wrong, but possibly great nonetheless. It depends on how your morals lay and what the act achieves. One might say assassinating Hitler would have been a great act and I'd be inclined to agree, it would have saved many people's lives. However, I think it is a morally wrong act to kill any other human being for any reason other than self defence.