‘Why should I be good?’ is an ethical question. It implies that an appraisal has to be done by myself and or others of my behaviour. This appraisal would determine the right things I have done, thought, or felt. From this, we can therefore assume there is the moral law and so a lawgiver. To refer to “the right things,” I am suggesting there are ‘wrong things’ too. For how can I affirm one, unless I believe that the other and opposite exists? Ethics, according to The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, is “the general study of right action” which “concerns the principles of right and wrong that govern our choices and pursuits.” (p. 286). Immanuel Kant, as explained in A Brief History of Western Philosophy, says, “the only thing that is good without qualification is good will” (Kenny, A. p. 270). He says to act with duty is to exhibit this good will.
But in this discussion so far I speak of “good” and “good will” with some assumption that there must be some common and even universal agreement to the meaning of “good.” Still we should ask, how can one know if a will is good or bad? Duty, though constructive in intent, does not assure that one’s will is good or bad. Duty implies accountability and this is in context to a group or society. Duty also is needed to be judged or appraised by some kind of yardstick or tool of morality. Still we return to the question, ‘How is good or bad determined?’ Obviously some kind of yardstick is assumed. But who designed this yardstick? How did it come about? Is it universal or not? But it must be universal. Yet how is its universality arrived at or decided? The Christian has an easy answer in (Romans 2:15, NIV) which declare that God has “the Law written in (our) hearts.” So there is the source of universality of the moral law from a Christian viewpoint.
Kant spoke of a moral law as a law known to all and accepted by all. Even atheists today speak of the moral law. They argue, and rightly so, they can be moral too (Romans 1:17-18, NIV). So-called agnostics who sit on the fence of everything accept the practicality of a moral law. People of varied religious beliefs agree on the reality of a moral law. But it is those who are theists argue that if there is a universal moral law, and there seem to be by general agreement, then there must be a universal moral lawgiver who caused it as Romans 2:15 clearly shows. Of course the atheist will not immediately agree with this for she would be admitting to the existence of a universal God or gods. Besides, the atheist denies the truth of the Biblical claims.
A universal accident as the big bang does not offer us a satisfactory answer as to the beginning of a universal moral law. Right and wrong as a value judgement require the principle of consciousness with its associated mind and intelligence to make judgemental appraisal of human activity. In other words, there must be in existence a unity of mind, consciousness and intelligence, to determine what the standard for right and wrong is.
We said that duty implies purpose. This purpose is beneficial to both the individual and others. It seeks peace and activates goodness. It motivates us to fulfill our natural obligations to ourselves, society and existence in compliance with the moral law. That ‘I am good’ informs or tells of my behaviour towards others and encourages me to perform such actions that lead to peaceful coexistence. This goodness pleases me and in my view, pleases others, and most of all pleases God—the epiphany or the highest revealing reality of my perception of what is good. He, that is God, is the lawgiver.
A serious confusion in atheism is the mixing up of (1) the need for God to have a moral law and (2) the belief in this God. Belief or disbelief in God does not affect the reality that he does exist. Nor does it affect the impartial operations of the universal moral law against which even the atheist self-judges and appraises the actions of others. The atheist can be moral and not believe in God I am saying. But God laws are written in his heart (Roman 2:15), “the law …written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)”
As each of us is unique, yet may have similar needs. Our perceptions of and reactions to reality will differ. But being aware of scarce resources that must be shared among unequalled demands, compromise is invaluable. My goodness in conjunction with my social conscience would motivate and approve my behaviour to be in sync with others of the community. Sharing, compromising, and agreeing with those with whom I may find disagreeable may become necessary just for survival and coexistence.
My ability to master my needs and emotions to achieve self-control will increase the chances of my survival and that of my fellow humans. This moral, behavioural yardstick will keep us in check in our maintenance of being good. Our goodness helps us to become charitable and altruistic. After all Jesus commands us: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous,” (Matthew 5:43-44, NIV). With this view the Christian can live in our present world.
Because of necessity, our good is always becoming and evolving as it seeks to establish balance, stability, and peace. If the extent of the good we can be would not satisfy and bring our social intercourses or interactions to a calm and peaceful state of affairs, then by necessity we instinctively devise or conceive resolutions. The cosmos is constantly adjusting and so it is constructively purpose driven as we evolve. An inner power pushes our will through the struggle for balance.
Perhaps this power lies only in the very “nature of our desires to become more than we currently are.” Perhaps this power then supersedes, operating inside and outside in fulfillment of a cosmic plan (I personally prefer to say, divine plan). Whatever or wherever it is, this power seeks to ensure balance and justifies why we should be good. This power cannot necessarily be haphazard. It cannot be unbalanced, inharmonious, or accidental. First of all, its outcome is consistently good—regardless of how it may behave to get there.
I am free and justified to be good and do not need to be compelled by societal law to make the right choices and take the right actions. The constant challenge for society is the perception of the relevant common good—relative or absolute. If this common good is in sync with the moral law, then I must be good for the benefit to myself, others and the cosmic scheme of things. If then, there is no moral law, then my efforts to be good are futile. But I began with an inferred premise that i can be good. So I am free to elect to be so and be a contributor to a constructive, social order.