Q&A: Moral
Moral
Question
Sometimes people with physical and/or mental disabilities come to the hospital, and almost none of my friends there takes care of them because it’s hard and requires patience, etc., etc., except for me. When I see such a person, I try to help however I can. But I don’t do it just like that; it’s hard for me too, and I don’t have the strength/time/patience, etc. But I say to myself, “If this were your father, what would you do?” and then suddenly I help, etc.
I know that the act itself is good, but doesn’t the need for a convincing factor (“If this were your father…”) actually mean that I’m not necessarily moral? Because if I were moral, then I would help even without that justification / convincing factor?
Answer
The truth is exactly the opposite. Someone who does good because that is his nature—that is, by nature he has compassion for people and feels guilty if he does not help them—is not necessarily a moral person. He is a person with a good nature. A moral person is someone who motivates himself (in various ways, such as through the kinds of arguments you mentioned) to do good because it is good.
That, of course, does not mean there is a contradiction: a person can be both good and moral, but being naturally good is not a condition for being moral. Moreover, even a person who is good by nature encounters difficulties that interfere with his being good. When something is very hard and/or repulsive, then even a good person will sometimes not do the good thing. He needs arguments like the ones you presented.
The conclusion is that first of all, you are certainly a moral person. But in light of what I wrote in the last point, you can definitely also be a good person. Using such arguments does not prove the opposite.