Sunday, April 21st | 16 Nisan 5779

May 12, 2017 3:28 pm

What it Means to Be ‘Good’

avatar by Jeremy Rosen

Email a copy of "What it Means to Be ‘Good’" to a friend

The Scales of Justice. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

When I was a kid, I used to wonder why it was that some children in my circles seemed naturally better and sweeter than others who seemed naturally evil and nasty. Why did some seem to be so much more religious and obedient than others? I found discipline hard to endure, rituals difficult to observe. I was a natural-born rebel, while others — like my younger brother — were natural-born saints. We were born into the same family, had the same parents, the same upbringing and yet we were so different.

We talk about good or moral human beings and about bad, immoral ones. But how does one become a good, moral person?

Psychologists like Freud, Piaget and Kohlberg developed theories about child development and how children come to make moral decisions. They differed as to what was most significant: evolution, the development of a child’s brain, interaction with other children and adults, a process of socialization.

A while back we would distinguish “nature” from “nurture.”

In the nature argument, some stated that we are automatically good, born as noble savages, but civilization influences us to become selfish and bad. Freud turned this on its head and said that we are born selfish creatures, and we learn or are taught by our parents and society to control our ids.

Then, there were those, like Eysenck, who unfashionably argued that good and bad behavior were conditioned by one’s genetic makeup — postulating, for example, the existence of a criminal chromosome, and producing a lot of crackpot pseudoscience, like racial theories and eugenics. Others focused anthropologically on how different tribes around the world developed their own rituals of conformity and socialization, which helped explain a lot of the rituals in the Torah we often find irrelevant or passé.

At this moment in time, as research into our genetic makeup is advancing in leaps and bounds, we are inclined to put more emphasis on the influence of our genes. Genes carry many different characteristics, both desirable and undesirable. That’s why we can inherit diseases. But there is a lot we do not know about what goes into genes and what exactly they can and do pass on. An ethical gene is not an impossibility. So, is being good or bad passed on through our genes? Are some people automatically good and others bad? We are still learning.

Jonathan Haidt in his book The Righteous Mind argues that “moral reasoning was mostly just a post hoc search for reasons to justify the judgments people had already made.” He uses an analogy of a rider on an elephant. The rider “reasons why” but the elephant “sees that” which represents emotion, intuition and all the built-in factors that automatically get us to behave in a particular way.

We do, and the we then try to reasons for why.

We act as if we have choice.

Socialization may explain why religious communities are successful in imposing conformity, but not necessarily very good at getting many of its members to be moral human beings or to act correctly even by its own standards. Authority, whether it is parental, educational, or religious, is rarely effective in controlling human behavior. People usually behave well when someone else is looking — like a policeman — and God is used so often to dissuade bad behavior because he is supposed to be the all-seeing eye. But why then do religious people who claim to believe in a God who “sees” whatever they do often behave badly? They will encourage killing in the name of religion or act in coercive ways that most of us do not think are right, and indeed much of which goes against religious ideology?

Psychologists tell us that simply commanding people to be good rarely works. They must decide for themselves if they want to, if it is worth it. We may mete out consequences to express approval or disapproval, or sometimes prophylactically, to protect society from dangerous people, but the issue of whether we can effect or change fundamental human behavior is debatable.

In fact, the old distinction between nature and nurture is still a pretty good one. We choose to abide by different laws — civil laws, religious laws, personal moralities — for and due to a variety of causes and effects. They all play a part. We are predetermined and we are free. In the end, as individuals, we must make decisions, even if there are laws that constrict us, and some of those decisions are predictable, some not.

In the meantime, what are we supposed to do? We punish criminals in the hope that they might change, we punish those who have broken our laws. But is this fair? Why did we even think punishment would get them to change?

Scolding is rarely effective, but presenting alternative models and moralities can at least offers standards for personal behavior in daily routines and extraordinary circumstances.

Those standards differ across culture and historical time, though some remain as applicable now as in the past. But, whether and how we choose to keep them is up to us. If one cares about being Jewish, the Torah provides a list of what comprises a Jewish way of life and a Jewish way of being good. It is one of several options and paradigms. Freedom of choice, if you like, is the freedom to decide which program we choose to be influenced by.

But this is one reason that I strongly support the separation of religion and state. I do believe religion should be part of the moral debate. But when religions gain power, they tend to exclude and suppress other ideologies. Actually, that’s what the nonreligious extremes of fascism and Marxism tries to do, as well — and is happening on campuses all the time now. “I am right, and you are wrong.”

Judaism claims that we are born neutral, with a good inclination and a bad one. We decide which one we give preference to. We are influenced by our own actions — good ones reinforce the good in our nature, and bad ones reinforce the bad. We know also that we are preset, in some ways, by genes and societies. But we still show every sign of being able to make some choices. We can and do change religions, countries and communities, friends and partners.

I know how I should have behaved in the past and recognize when I make mistakes now, too. Sometimes I do what I should, and sometimes I do not. That is the struggle of life. Augustine is said to have prayed, “Please God, make me good…but not just yet.” I always prayed to God to make me good. I just didn’t always try hard enough.

As R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto said hundreds of years ago in his introduction to The Path of the Righteous, we know what we ought to do, but we need to be constantly reminded. The function of education (as opposed to indoctrination) is to inform, to present possibilities, to reiterate, and to encourage people to think and to decide for themselves. To teach rather than preach. That is the only defense against hucksters and fanatics.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner