Because it's the right thing to do.

Why should one do that which is good? No, I don't think that good is synonymous with, "something one ought to do". For example, most people would agree that selling all your worldly possessions and donating the money to charity is something that would be good. However, that doesn't mean that one is obligated to do so. — Hyper

As a simple answer we ought to do what is good just because it is good. We ought to do what is best just because it is best. In real life it is more complicated than that though, because although we share a common humanity, we are also all different. If selling all your worldly possessions and giving the proceeds to charity would be good for you, better than any other course of action, then you ought to do it. But it may not be the best, most appropriate course for you, and we should never do anything on the basis of some abstract principle.

There are different way in which to answer this question.

I'll go to the evolutionary answer. What is the evolutionary advantage of being good? Well, it keeps you as part of the group, and belonging to a group meant the difference between survival and perishing. (Maybe it still does.) A social animal relies on acceptance in the group.

I'll add to that - it feels good to do good.

Why should one do that which is good? No, I don't think that good is synonymous with, "something one ought to do". For example, most people would agree that selling all your worldly possessions and donating the money to charity is something that would be good. However, that doesn't mean that one is obligated to do so. Please input into this conversation with your own takes. — Hyper

You ask, “Why are we obligated to do good?” then you give an example where you conclude we are not obligated to do good. So, you’ve answered your question - we are not.

Because people have collectively spent thousands of years to eradicate that which ails and plagues us ie. "is bad". Through social orders and institutions, wars and alliances, science and chemistry, and good ol' fashioned blunt instruments. You do not want to be on the other end of humanity's collective thousand year offensive.

One doesn't have to. But if one wants to, you know, live, it is highly recommended.

I suppose you mean, why do anything you don't have to or aren't legally obligated to. That's a fair question. In business, it's all about accounting and running a tight ship, no room for pesky things such as empathy, trust, and warmth. That's why societies have laws; you stay in between the lines and your business remains your business. Of course, people love supporting companies that at the end of the day seem to "have a heart", whether they have generous employee policies or donate to charities, because at the end of the day, we are all human and involved in this crazy journey of life together. You never know when it might be you who is under the bus or suddenly not well off, knowing people who don't mind lending a hand just makes society a better place to be, which makes the workforce more productive, and ties into national security as well. It's a neat little package that all makes perfect sense, really.

No, I don't think that good is synonymous with, "something one ought to do". For example, most people would agree that selling all your worldly possessions and donating the money to charity is something that would be good. — Hyper

But you ought sell all your worldly goods and donate them to charity. You also ought be self-reliant, which depends on your having worldly goods. You are going to have to work out some sort of balance.

That is, your posited counter example to synonymity does not quite work.

And so is right, we ought to do what is good just because it is good. What is good is what we ought do, and what we ought do is what is good.



, , that we have evolved to do something or to prefer something simply does not imply that we ought to do that thing. There remains the logical gap between what we do and what we ought do. Until you get your heads around that, you are not even addressing ethical issues.

we ought to do what is good just because it is good. What is good is what we ought do, and what we ought do is what is good. — Banno

This ignores human nature. It's akin to saying, "Do this because I said so."

Humans operate on a system of rewards and punishments. If you do good, there will be rewards. if you do bad, there will be consequences.

There remains the logical gap between what we do and what we ought do. — Banno

The use of the word "ought" implies guidelines externally put on us. So, okay, what guides us? I would say that belonging to the group is our biggest social motivator.

What is good is what we ought do, and what we ought do is what is good. — Banno

This seems wrong to me. I don't think I see the equivalence in usage.

What is good seems relative to a person's will - self-centred. What is good for one may not be good for another. Murdering is great for the murderer, shitty for the murdered's family.

What we ought to do seems relative to the will of others - other centred. We ought not murder because other people don't want us to.

The use of the word "ought" implies guidelines externally put on us. So, okay, what guides us? I would say that belonging to the group is our biggest social motivator. — Questioner

That's how it seems to me too.

This ignores human nature. It's akin to saying, "Do this because I said so." — Questioner

How does it ignore human nature, and how is it akin to "Do this because I said so"?

Why should one do that which is good? — Hyper

Correctly analysed, I don't think anyone should do what is good.

It's pretty clear that "good" in the OP is being used in the sense of "having moral virtue" and not "Desired or approved of".

How does it ignore human nature — Banno

As mentioned, we operate on a system of rewards an punishments.

how is it akin to "Do this because I said so"? — Banno

It's not giving a reason for doing good.

As mentioned, we operate on a system of rewards an punishments. — Questioner

Sure. Ought we?

It's not giving a reason for doing good. — Questioner

The point is that "one ought do good" is no more informative than "one ought do what one ought do" or "doing good is good".

that we have evolved to do something or to prefer something simply does not imply that we ought to do that thing. — Banno

I can understand that. It's human nature to take and covet and much worse, that is true. However in this case, "being a team player" is not simple evolution but long-crafted social institution that has advanced greatly so over the millennia. We have new understanding of psychology and sociology that seems to offer near-empirical evidence as to what builds and sustains societies that last and what factors, behaviors, and deviations lead to their collapse. Being of high social regard for pleasant demeanor, selflessness, and going above and beyond means more people will have your back, in a simple cost-benefit analysis sort of way. On the inverse "no one wants an untrustworthy person around" is another simple yet relevant example that seems to stand the test of time and type of society. Bear in mind I was partly answering the OP with a possibly misconstrued notion of it seeming to ask: "Why should we not do bad things" as opposed to "Why should we (go out of our way to) do good".

Ought we? — Banno

This question seems moot, since we do. We would have to totally reprogram human brains to get away from that. We would have to be a totally different species!

The point is that "one ought do good" is no more informative than "one ought do what one ought do" or "doing good is good". — Banno

One ought to do good because it contributes to their survival.

You may be right. In which case the OP is confused, as doing what is good then exactly entails obligation.

This question seems moot, since we do. — Questioner

Then you are choosing not to make ethical considerations. You assume that how things are is how they ought be, a recipe for stagnation.

One ought to do good because it contributes to their survival. — Questioner

Why ought one contribute to our survival?

There's this whole big area of reasoning that you are avoiding.

All of that might be the case, and I more or less agree with you in regard to cooperation. There is more consideration of the ethical in your reply than in others here. You are acknowledging the difference between how things are and how we want them to be; the "we" is bolded becasue ethics is not about self interest.

Because it's the right thing to do. — Talkopu

Yep.

There's this whole big area of reasoning that you are avoiding. — Banno

You're probably right. But the question seems simple. "Should we do good?" Of course, we should do good. I always feel good when I do the right thing. Then I can better respect myself.

But I am also a big believer in the biological basis of behavior, and primitive motivations.

"Should we do good?" Of course, we should do good. — Questioner

That's the right response to the OP.

Cheers.

I always feel good when I do the right thing. — Questioner

That might be so, but it is important not to conclude that what is the right thing to do is what makes you feel good.

That might be so, but it is important not to conclude that what is the right thing to do is what makes you feel good. — Banno

I guess it depends on the person and i am only speaking from my own experience.

Why should one do that which is good? — Hyper

Doing good for self is just as important as doing good for the good, others, etc. Doing it for others, that which is good. What does that mean for the self? What was the sacrifice? What was the reward?

I wonder about those that are pleased with themselves in the act of helping others. They are happy to help, reward to self in it AND they are rewarded from acting, helping another by the reaction they get, the need is something they crave, to be needed...personality attribute, perhaps...not going there (I will though) Rewarded in the act and after in praise. Sometimes gifts or cash if they are lucky or really manipulative.

I think, it's important to note the feeling we get from doing this "good," and is it relevant to consider. How much time was avail. to weigh out the options, THINK, and make decision in how to proceed. What was going on around you? How is the decision instinctual for some and debated by others? That instinct is there for both, the brain is working the mind is silently focused.

How quick was the mind made up before the body catches on? Guilty? Is that a gut feeling, the body reacting to one thing while the will goes or stays where it ought...and does/will/has. SO what is the move? To help or to pass? Is this step verifiable? I think so...

There is also the philosophical tradition that to reach the highest level of being human was to live a virtuous life.

... i am only speaking from my own experience. — Questioner

Your experience is as valid as anyone's.

I guess it depends on the person... — Questioner

It is worth considering what can be said about what we ought do as well as what I ought do. How should we set things up, collectively? See for instance Rawls veil of ignorance.

There is also the philosophical tradition that to reach the highest level of being human was to live a virtuous life. — Questioner

And again, is the goal to achieve "the highest level of being human", or just to do what is right?

That's the right response to the OP. — Banno

But, why, perhaps is what Questioner (and to an extent myself, if not for purposes of discussion) may wonder. It seems self-evident, sure. Well, tell us why. Naturally I find the reasons plain as day, as I've posted, but for the sake of philosophic inquiry and higher understanding, make the argument, why not?

we ought to do what is good just because it is good. What is good is what we ought do, and what we ought do is what is good. — Banno

You're not seriously suggesting this is an actual position are you? This is tautological and unworkable.

Isn't that like "why does 1+1 equal 2"?

It doesn't say anything about what we ought do, so isn't intended to be "workable". It's a bit of frippery, like the OP.