What does being good mean?

“Striving to be good is the ultimate struggle of every man. Being bad is easy, but being good requires sincere commitment, discipline and strength. We have to work hard every day just to remain good.” ―  Suzy Kassem,  Rise Up and Salute the Sun: The Writings of Suzy Kassem

In modern-day society, there seems to be a lot of misperception about what being good actually means. The idea of doing the right thing for moral reasons, not because the law says so comes into play. The law should be perceived as a guidance, not an opportunity to punish. As an example, in a recent investigation, a nine-and-a-half-hour snapshot of the Mitchell Freeway in Perth confirmed that nearly two drivers every minute were caught red-handed using their mobile phones behind the wheel. According to the survey, 1058 drivers were captured distracted by their phone as they drive up to 100km/hr. (PerthNow, 2018). In this instance, while being good essentially means being focused on the road, an average of one driver chose to do the wrong thing every 33 seconds. Generally, a moral disposition is almost common-sense, going by the ethical principles passed from most parents to their children. I believe that there is a difference between doing the right things and doing things right. The latter is better.

This leads me to the comparing what the law says against moral disposition. Some pertinent questions come to mind: “Why do people really obey the law in the contemporary society”? And “What is the difference between obeying the law and doing the right thing”? I am of the opinion that people should do things that are consistent with the law, not because it is the law but because their moral justification aligns with their actions. People sometimes do things because the law says so, even when their moral justification suggests otherwise. In an ideal world, people choose not to be inconsistent with the law, even when a binding and legal compulsion do not exist. It is about doing the right thing, the law should be seen as a strategy to prevent excesses.

According to W.D. Ross moral theory as expounded in ‘The Right and the Good’ (Smith, Ross and Joseph, 1932). W.D. Ross’s intuitionism theory does not provide the right and wrong answers in all circumstances. As a matter of fact, there is no all-encompassing moral standard. Alternatively, he believes that people can be over-ridden by circumstances and moral reasons, brought about by conflict of obligations and values; justified by self-intuition. So, balancing conflicting obligations and values is the catchphrase. Moral reason, urgency, the intuition of right or wrong, discernment, common sense approach are considerations on ethical behaviour. One way of analysing W.D. Ross moral theory is represented in table D, the choice to go to the gym or to cheer up a wife (https://www.ijltet.org/journal/151728819812{60651ab07fec9e7e02a31a04e481e0062320fd711c71633309a86921e5740f81}202051.pdf, 2018).

The preferred decision depends on which option provides the most logical moral benefit at any point in time or perhaps on randomly deciding between the two options. Ross’s proposal of “common sense” is a reasonable input in our contemporary society since people have a tendency to align with morality.

References

https://www.ijltet.org/journal/151728819812{60651ab07fec9e7e02a31a04e481e0062320fd711c71633309a86921e5740f81}202051.pdf. (2018). International Journal of Latest Trends in Engineering and Technology, 9(3).

PerthNow. (2018). Idiots with eyes off the road at 100km/h. [online] Available at: https://www.perthnow.com.au/technology/smartphones/perth-drivers-caught-using-mobile-phone-texting-on-freeway-ng-b88752277z

Smith, T., Ross, W. and Joseph, H. (1932). The Right and the Good. The Philosophical Review, 41(5), p.519.