I was given a task by my philosophy teacher to make a reflection paper that answers the question ‘Why be good?’ This is my response. I hope you like it.
What is a good person? What are the necessary qualities sought in a person to be called someone that is actually good?
The (ever-reliable) Merriam-Webster Dictionary lists several qualities of being ‘good’ with attributes such as virtuous, right, commendable, kind, benevolent and loyal. A good person accordingly is someone of a definite, favorable character of which his actions are seen to be commendable to other people. Noting the ‘other people’ part, a person’s goodness therefore is something dependent on other people’s standards of what is a favorable person. Now, since this notion of goodness is relative, it can be inferred that there would be lots and lots of definitions and standards of being ‘good’ and necessarily, there would be conflicting definitions of what is good and favorable. Noah Weinberg, a rabbi, notes that “[a] proper definition of ‘good’ is the starting point of everything you do in life. Obviously you can’t just invent your own definition of what ‘good’ is”. This ambiguous sense of what is good can be dangerous, as a good person can be seen as someone who, at one end of morality line, is ‘concerned with other people’s well-being’, and on the other end, someone “…[who's] willing to strap a bomb to his belly and detonate it in a crowded Israeli market”, depending on what side of the world you are in. Of course, the last two phrases are just for comic relief but, Yikes!
Instantly, ‘why be good?’ becomes a vague question and without perhaps guidance or personal experience, one cannot fully answer such a simple question. In this light, one should be able to find bases of morality and make judgments to which one thinks is good. For the religious, this task is easy as they can get these from the devout, or at least, a following community they are in, following their culture, traditions and literature (such as the Bible, the Torah, the Qur’an, and others). With these, one can get an idea of what is ‘good’ based from the community and culture’s idea of goodness. Now, answers to this question can still be diverse but can be simply grouped into two: ‘Because, X says so’, a rather shallow and unfounded answer, and ‘Because, Y’, with Y being an ultimate purpose of doing what is good. Many religions uphold that by doing good to others, one can either go to Heaven, reach Nirvana, go to Hell (as for the Satanists, yes this is happening), end their reincarnation cycle, and others. Some people may even answer that they do good ‘because it is just’, ‘because she needs the help’, ‘so I can make people happy’, or maybe even just for the sake of being a jolly good fellow.
Now, ask that to an atheist.
As an atheist and an active netizen, I have always been bombarded with morality-themed questions from people, some out of curiosity, some just to argue and troll people, some in an active sharing of ideas, some just to screen-cap my replies and mock me somewhere else. One of the common questions was, ‘What is your basis of morality?’ Now, I’m being asked again… and I still don’t have a definite answer. Let me reflect.
I have a personality that is uneasy when an obvious tension or conflict is imminent. I have always favored order (even if I’m disorganized at home) and I have always believed that things are easily and guiltlessly done when things are where they ought to be. I also hold a diplomatic persona in dealing with others because hostility always starts in misguided misconceptions. I value respect, goodwill and fairness in my dealings with others. I try to be friendly with others. When faced in a dilemma, I try to reflect and do things in sane reason. I think of ‘doing good’ as doing things in what I think would benefit the greatest interest of many. These and others satisfy my being as a human. Now the question is, why? Had I have been raised in a different background, I could do something else and maybe I could satisfy myself, such as killing random people ‘just because’, or do illegal stuff, raise money and tour around the world, or to fool people, get power and reign the Philippines, make stuff, cover up and walk away? Maybe it’s because I consider the possibility of me being in other people’s situations and by being conscious of it I do things I consider ‘good’. The ever cliché Golden and Silver Rules may be my unconscious force and guide in living morally. Of course, there are (many?) times I don’t follow these, but that doesn’t mean I do not value them. Trying to live in this ideal, I assumed the role of a diplomat and a reasoned altruist because I feel this is the right thing to do. Ultimately, when I become naught, I want people to see me as a good example because of what I did and what I have done to them. Maybe, that’s it.
So, why be good? For me, to be good is to be considerate of others and act accordingly in good reason for in this way I believe I will be someone in others’ eyes and minds not as a living nightmare but as a living example of a good man. Now, that sounded self-serving. Don’t get me wrong. :)
9 comments
Rechille says:
February 1, 2012 at 13:25 (UTC 8)
Being altruistic has positive effects on the community and may in fact be a key in having a pleasant one. To act in accordance to a reasonable shared value like minimizing pollution, you can help alleviate climate change not just for yourself but also for the next generation. To put it simply, doing good stuff makes life easier if not better.
Nilo says:
February 21, 2012 at 06:52 (UTC 8)
Hi Ralph,
It is good to know you are one of the “good” guys. A rare characteristic in a world where competition, deceit, and abuse are the unspoken rules to success. I hope I’m exagerating . I am an evangelical Christian so you know where I stand. Have you ever wondered why theists and atheists both have concepts of “goodness”. In fact, this is true of people from all cultures. We may have varied ways of expressing them, but it is undeniable that a commonality of this concept exists. Therefore, we can assume a core to this common idea of goodness. And if we try to look at the kernel I think we will see fairness, honesty, respect, justice, and compassion among those that are included as core values. These kernels form the basis of laws/rules in different times and localities.
The conduct of an individual is checked by the rules of the immediate family. The conduct of the family is checked by the values of the whole clan or tribe. The tribe in turn is checked by the fundamental law of the land. This laws limit our ways of expressing what is good and bad. For example, stealing is considered a crime even though done to help someone else. The goal may be noble. but the means is considered “bad”. The conduct of a country is checked by the internatonal laws. The common idea of goodness becomes very clear in the universal declaration of human rights. Perhaps my point is that “goodness” of anyone is inseparably linked with the idea of common rule. And if you think about it this is in line with the Judeo-Christian concept of what it means to be a good person. Thanks
Reiko says:
April 11, 2012 at 22:06 (UTC 8)
You leave open this question.
“Is it possible for a custom or habit within a culture to be long-standing and completely consistent with other behaviors of a group yet at the same time be immoral?” – V. R. Ruggiero
Nilo says:
April 12, 2012 at 10:06 (UTC 8)
The act of judging requires a standard by which a habit or custom is compared and assessed. By this definition, the answer to your question is “yes”. I am merely pointing out that no group or community can last without some form of rules. And these rules are still based on the core values I cited. The expression of these core values change because of varying worldviews that deternine how the following are understood. 1) Self identity, 2) sense of purpose, 3) The ultimate problem in life, and 4) The ultimate solution. To a Christian 1) self identity = creatures of God 2) purpose = to enjoy a lasting realtionship with God 3) problem = sin against God 4) Redemption from sin.
Reiko says:
April 13, 2012 at 00:19 (UTC 8)
Hmm. The principle of right desire works very well in the search for society’s standard for “good”, too. It is the notion that man ought to desire what is really good for him. Society just has to prove exactly how “good” the subject in question is. This should set the rules.
Some cultures do not share the same core values we possess and uphold, though. To cite a rather extreme example, the Ik tribe in Uganda “would desert children at an early age … to be eaten by wild animals.” It would be very difficult to set the moral standard based on “self” only.
Nilo says:
April 13, 2012 at 08:07 (UTC 8)
I think the principle of right desire is operative in all human beings. We are a bundle of desires I generally classify as self-preservation and other-preservation. I say this because self preservation is almost instinctive but also sometimes there are those willing to sacrifice for the welfare of others (e.g. Jesus, Gandhi). Not all can go to the latter end of the pendulum that is why these people are remembered in history. We admire and applaud them for their noble deeds and intentions.
There is nothing wrong with self preservation. What makes it wrong is trying to achieve them through disregard of core values such as love, fairness, and honesty. If I am correct, extreme conditions led to the fractioning of the Ik family bonds (Wikipedia). Self preservation dominated resulting in an almost total disregard of others. But I do not think they were like this when they emerged as a group of people. Societies needed something more to set the boundaries and parameters of our “right desires.”
Sin in the Bible is often defined as trying to get the good things the wrong way. Generally, the right way is dictated by the “herd” rules which I believe are based on the core values of honesty, fairness, and affection. I also believe that Christianity can provide a very good model or paradigm for such rules.
Questionnaire says:
April 14, 2012 at 00:33 (UTC 8)
To Nilo:
I have one question though. Would you do a minor evil for the greater good? Explain.
Nilo says:
April 14, 2012 at 05:39 (UTC 8)
Honestly, I would not want to be in a situation where I will be forced to make such a decision. But your question is indeed valid. Sometimes people find themselves in situations where the choices they see in front of them virtually belong to the category of evil. Being decent people, they will have to choose between the “lesser” evil. The truth is we can only react to situations based primarily on three factors 1) what we know (objective) 2) what we feel (affective), and 3) what we can do. Our resulting action (or reaction) is a product of the balance between the objective and affective factors. The more the “objective” part of us rules, the easier we can react based on what we know as right or wrong. The more the emotion run wild, the foggier becomes our notion of good and evil. In a court setting, there is such a thing as “momentary insanity” where normal people were able to commit “evil” deeds in extreme circumstances.
When we talk about this hypothetically, we are actually being objective because we try to simulate such situations in our minds. But things will be surprisingly different when we are in such situation. So here are my thoughts. 1) Evil is evil no matter what. We will all be held accountable for our actions. 2) I would not set your query as a rule. But hypothetically, I think it is possible for me to commit an act against my will in extreme circumstances, being a man. 3) There is a difference between being “forced” to do something against one’s will and willful commission of evil. 4) Setting your query as a rule will only justify willful transgression. A corrupt government official can justify his conduct by saying that it was done for the sake of his family’s welfare. 5) Through all these, the Christian God is merciful and just. We can always go to Him with a “broken spirit and a contrite heart”. He is “faithful and just to forgive us and cleanse us of all unrighteousness”. Genuine, heartfelt repentance is the key.
Johnpierre says:
March 14, 2012 at 16:12 (UTC 8)
Altruism is the opposite of self esteem. I agree with Ayn Rand, we are slaves to one another. I am a victim of it. I survived it and restored what was robbed away from my humanity – my dignity. it is where self esteem dwell, it is there where purpose is defined. If there is value for altruism, that would be serving your ephemeral life on earth by being happy, contented and productive. If all are like this, this world’s bounty satisfy our existence. The earth has eternal bounty for eternal humanity.