Doing Good vs Being Good: A Reflection on Christian and Secular Claims
Image credits belong to: Philippe Oursel (@ourselp) | Unsplash Photo Community
Can we be good without God?
If a person is good, while lacking belief in God or any divinity, he/she has no fear of supernatural punishment in response to their intended or unintended failure to be good. So, it seems reasonable to assume the person is being good for the sake of goodness alone.
That kind of stereotypical thinking is understandable and commonplace, but it also ignores the various factors that I think usually contribute to a person’s motives as they strive for the desired outcome. Goodness alone cannot be the single thought on a person’s mind at all times. That is essentially impossible. The tumultuous self-inquiries we face during depression, anxiety, and raising children can certainly attest to that.
Secularism and humanism have developed numerous systems of philosophical thought with no allegiance to God whatsoever.
For instance, consequentialist ethics argues that the results of an action define it as good or bad, right or wrong. The end justifies the means in minimizing harm for as many as possible.
Another example is Deontological ethics, or duty-based ethics, which argue that the morality of an action should be judged independently of its consequences, hinting at rules and principles that should be kept as universal and absolute.
The fact that both philosophical systems are found to have strengths and weaknesses testifies to humanity’s ongoing imperfection and lack of a panacea for moral struggles. Such ongoing imperfection implies to me that humans cannot rely on themselves solely. They must look beyond themselves to an outside, transcendental source.
In being good, a person can be influenced by what they feel are their individual principles/values, understanding of others’ feelings, the expectations from their community, and the desire for mutual benefits from collaborations with other community members. All of that can be independent of conscious religious convictions, but it does not prove to me that the person in question is inherently good, especially if they incur harmful consequences in spite of their respectable motives.
An atheist’s sincere attempts at moral goodness also do not prove that moral standards and goodness can exist without God, ontologically speaking. It merely shows that the atheist can process moral standards of goodness and have actions that follow suit. But it does not cut to the core of what is ultimately good and ideal, or how we should collectively behave as a species.
I think this pertains to the is-ought fallacy that says prescriptive statements (what ought to be) cannot be derived from descriptive statements (what is).
You Are Good? Really?
"I am a good person" is a common phrase in the English language. It only appears to be a moral evaluation without actual proof that the person is as such. Introspection is the basis for arguing that your moral/ethical words and actions are the results of your personal values, empathy, social norms, and your desire for reciprocity and cooperation in the community. If we want to adhere to empirical standards of truth, introspection does not fit the bill as it includes no objective metrics. The tools for accomplishing virtuous outcomes may serve an individual’s inner narrative or a meta-narrative as an overarching story that wants to explain the fundamentals of being good without God, but these tools alone do not prove what is inherently good and ideal for humans (i.e., how should we live as individuals).
I am going back to a basic question that has haunted humanity long before our internet discussions on atheism versus Christian apologetics: if there is no God, what is ultimately good for humanity and how should we live? Are we just making it up as we go along?
My core argument today is this: your moral evaluations and claims follow after the imperatives of thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s spouse, nor cheat on one’s spouse, and other similar essentials. To make moral claims and evaluations about yourself, your neural circuitry needs a linguistic landscape on which to map itself, otherwise you have nothing to speak with. There must be a foundation of collective human experience, shared narratives, and historical dialogues which all together precede yourself, meaning you are not the sole maker of your morals and ethics. Such foundations have manifested through things such as sacred texts and stories, with the Bible being very prominent throughout human history.
From an empirical standpoint, “I am a good person” seems strange to me.
Why?
People seem to only DO things that can be defined as good and desirable, according to human standards. If we agree that humans are fallible, you can expect a person to DO something bad at some point. So, to BE good belongs in a separate category, apparently.
Many philosophers and writers have spilled ink over this apparently unresolved topic of being good versus doing good.
In order for x to be x, and not y or z, the x in question must do things identifiable with x. Otherwise, is it really x? Furthermore, is a human inherently good, by nature, if he/she ever does anything bad?
Well, good things can be done by people who are perceived or known to be evil. Take the Third Reich of Nazi Germany, for instance, in which they scientifically linked cigarette-smoking with cancer, in the effort to restrict unhealthy tobacco use. It is unfortunate that their health campaign was more fixated on Aryan Germans rather than trying to help humanity as a whole. And they were guilty of genocide, of course.
Saddam Hussein is another example of someone who mixed good and evil, as he allowed peace between the Sunnis and Shias to coexist with egregious human rights violations (e.g., war crimes, chemical warfare against his own people, torturing prisoners, and trying to destroy the Kurdish population).
Not everyone faces those extremes, however. The average person is more likely to face white lies and omissions of truth. Perhaps you know someone who was guilty of infidelity as they enjoyed sleeping with his/her landlord to decrease the rent so the family could avoid homelessness.
Even facing the temptation to mix truths with lies, or good with evil, is, in of itself, evidence of human nature’s inherent flaws. We have all faced them.
If we are often at risk of wrongdoing, even in the midst of striving to do what is right, what is the meaning and appearance of being good, anyway? What does it look like?
Many humans strive to do good for its sake alone, but stumble along the way. Selflessness, all the time, and not just some of the time, is the ideal. Doing good based on fear of punishment involves misery. No one recommends it. I have met Christians who certainly agree with me on that.
But who is able to verifiably and selflessly do multiple good things, again and again, with perfect consistency and independence of any reward whatsoever? I have met Christians and atheists who have accomplished a few selfless acts in the name of goodness alone. Eventually, selflessness erodes and the person (atheist or Christian) strives for a good thing with the hope of some kind of reward.
Donating to charity, helping an elderly person across the street, giving a kind word to a depressed person, opening the door for someone who has their hands full, etc. Think of any generous and laudable act that can be defined as good, but not cost too much, and you are likely to find selflessness there.
Things change quickly when we start demanding too much of people's time, money, and energy. Has any man or woman ever started a philanthropic career without the hope/intention of eating and clothing themselves while doing it? I certainly think not.
Every great story of triumph seems to involve the hero fighting a constant battle against selfishness. I think that adds to Romans 3:23-24’s case that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” who is the paragon of everything true, right, just, and noble. And there is an unmerited favor from Christ that settles our debts we could not settle for ourselves because of our imperfections.
The author of this blog post is Matthew Sabatine, who was born in the United States and raised as a Christian but left the faith in his early twenties. He returned to the faith midway through 2022. Matthew has some experience in the mental health field as a direct support professional, caring for people with intellectual and development disabilities and people who were in long-term residency/rehabilitation programs. Though Matthew has no formal undergraduate or graduate degree, he has experience co-facilitating therapy groups under the supervision of licensed counselors. Matthew currently works in sales/marketing by day and blogs on his free time at night.
General Disclaimer: All sources are hyperlinked in this article. The author has made their best attempt to accurately interpret the sources used and preserve the source-author’s original argument while avoiding plagiarism. Should you discover any errors to that end, please email thecommoncaveat@gmail.com and we will review your request.
All information in this article is intended for educational/entertainment purposes only. This information should not be used as medical/therapeutic advice. Please seek a doctor/therapist for health advice. By reading and sharing this article, you agree to understanding that this is meant only for educational/entertainment purposes and not medical/therapeutic advice.