Answer the skeptic: Why do bad things happen to good people?
Short Answer: There are no good people.
There is a difference between a good person and a person that does good things. Jesus says in Mark 10:18 that, “No one is good except God.” We have created the idea in our culture that if you do good things then you become a good person, and if you do bad things you are a bad person. However, this is not the view that Jesus held. Jesus was very clear that it is only God that is good. Dr. Clay Jones says, “Doing a good act doesn’t make you a good person. You are just a doer of good.”
For the most part, people only choose to do good because of a fear of punishment or negative consequences. We follow the speed limit because we don’t want to get a ticket. It is not the fact that premarital sex is immoral that keeps many young people from having sex, but instead, it is a fear of pregnancy. I see this concept play out in my job as a teacher. If a student thinks he/she is not going to get caught, there isn’t much that is going to keep him/her from cheating on a test. During the class we discussed that when people think they can get away with it and they have half a reason to do it, they do it.
Now, this isn’t saying that every act is done or not done out of a fear of consequences, but this shows the true character of people. There would be tremendously negative consequences if a person lived a life never doing good. In order to survive, and prosper in society, we have to do good acts. But again, this does not make us good; only broken people who do good. The answer to the original question becomes obvious when you instead ask, “Why do bad things happen to bad people?”
Another question that could be asked of a skeptic is, “What do you mean by ‘good’?” If there is no objective standard of good, then who decides what “good” is? They only way there can be objectively right and wrong actions is if God exists. Without God as the perfect moral standard, all actions become personal preferences. In that case, what is good for one person may be not good for another. Good loses its meaning in a world without God.
Whether you seek to answer this question from a Christian worldview or a materialistic worldview, the answer is the same; there are no good people.
This is one part in a series of posts on why God allows evil. Look below to read previous posts that you missed and see what is coming up. Each section will be posted weekly in the order they appear below.
- Why do people suffer for a sin Adam committed long ago?
- Why does God let a child die?
- How might it be fair that God ordered the killing of Canaanite children?
- Why do bad things happen to good people?
- Why is eternal punishment fair?
- If conscious belief in Jesus is required for salvation, how is that fair to those who have never heard the gospel?
- Free will isn’t so valuable for God to permit so much suffering.
- What good is the suffering I endure?
- How will Heaven mitigate our suffering on earth?
- Why does God allow evil?
think-well.org 
January 18, 2016 at 8:22 pm
Hello Ryan,
I was wondering, why do you think there has to be an objective morality? Why do we all have to agree on the definition of ‘good’? And do people actually all agree on the definition and parameters of ‘good’?
I look forward to read your piece on “why eternal punishment if fair” 🙂
Walking Around Human
LikeLike
January 18, 2016 at 8:30 pm
Thanks for the comment! I think there has to be objective morality in order to define “good” and “bad”. If we don’t agree on a definition, then how can you answer the initial question? It is possible that the “good” person isn’t good according to most people and maybe the “bad” thing isn’t bad. If there is no objective moral actions then actions become different rather than good or bad. Then the question becomes, “Why did something happen to someone?” Good and bad are moral terms that can only be used in a world in which God exists.
And for your last question, it isn’t important that people all agree, but if objective definition exists. If God exists, then objective morality exists whether people agree on it or not. Just because people disagree doesn’t mean that objective morality doesn’t exit.
LikeLike
January 18, 2016 at 10:36 pm
Hey, thanks for replying 🙂
To me, there seems to be a misunderstanding in expecting a god to create moral consensus, indeed if you need a constant when looking at moral choices (because to me morality is the reason and manner in which we make a choice) one only has to look at the fact we are all united in humanity (we are all human). I would also wager that the concepts of “a ‘good’ person who is not good in the eyes of society” is actually linguistic fallacy. Because the only way you could actually ascertain this person is actually ‘good’ (irrespective of what society may say about this person); is through moral interpretation, or for the absolute standard to be available and understandable to all (we know this is not true, because total moral consensus does not exist).
What do you think?
WAH
LikeLike
January 19, 2016 at 12:01 am
WAH,
You said, “if you need a constant when looking at moral choices one only has to look at the fact we are all united in humanity.” Then you go on to say that moral consensus doesn’t exist. That is the problem. Even though we are all human, humans don’t agree. What one person considers evil another may consider good. Therefore, if there is no standard outside of our humanity, then there isn’t objective morality; everything becomes relative.
Second, I would agree with you when you say, “Because the only way you could actually ascertain this person is actually ‘good’; is through moral interpretation, or for the absolute standard to be available and understandable to all.” You are correct that without the absolute standard being available to all, then we cannot define what “good” is. However, it doesn’t follow that there is no moral standard just because there isn’t a total moral consensus. Think of it like this. If you are doing your finances with your husband/wife and you both come to two different conclusions on how much money you have, does the fact that you disagree mean that you don’t have any money? No. When there are different opinions it means that one person is right and the other is wrong, or they are both wrong. The same goes for morality. Absolute morality is available to all even when some misunderstand it.
LikeLike
January 18, 2016 at 11:19 pm
Hi Ryan,
I enjoyed reading your post. I just want to make a minor comment regarding the statement “if you do bad things you are a bad person.” The way the statement is worded and where it is placed lead me to believe that you are saying that “doing bad acts does not make people bad.” (I am assuming that is not what you meant to say, but there is a room for misunderstanding)
I agree that performing good actions does not necessarily make a person good, but I think doing bad actually makes a person bad. For instance, if A murders B, A becomes murderer because of his act of killing B. However, I absolutely agree with you that the scripture is clear that no one except God is good. But some clarification I would like to make is that only God is good because God is the only one who never does any evil. I believe anyone can do good simply for the sake of doing good (e.g., parents loving their children because they want to love children), yet individual acts cannot speak for the whole person. When culture asks the initial question of this post, it is assuming people who do “generally more good than evil” are good, which I think is a wrong assumption since anyone who is guilty of doing any evil act (whether it is one or thousand different acts), the person fails to be good in that of which he is guilty. It is just as person A in the example above can be a good father, teacher, friend, and so forth to other people than person B. Thus, it seems that bad people are bad because they do evil, but good people should be defined as “those who never do any evil.” According to scripture, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rm 3:23). Perhaps, the problem of the initial question lies in the fact that the culture defines good and bad people based on “the frequency” of the good and bad acts people perform.
I appreciate your revision of the initial question, “Why do bad things happen to bad people?” It adds some rhetorical force to the argument you are making.
In Christ,
Hyuna and James
LikeLike
January 18, 2016 at 11:51 pm
Thanks for the comment! My original comment was that culture bases a person’s “goodness” only on what they do. Doing good makes you good and doing bad makes you bad. I was just arguing that there is more to it than that.
I love how you explained how actions relate to a person’s goodness. I completely agree with you. Doing evil does make a person bad and that is the key. Every person has done evil and so no one is good. I like how you said, “culture defines good and bad people based on ‘the frequency’ of the good and bad acts people perform.” I think you hit that right on and therein lies the problem. We need to show culture that it isn’t the frequency but that fact that all have sinned.
Thanks!
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 18, 2016 at 11:36 pm
I don’t agree (or understand) with one of your conclusions. So, If I do something good because I fear the consequences of doing the bad thing, that makes it “not good”? Or a good person it’s nos suppose to fear the bad consequences of doing bad? Jesus was good, and did good. But he doubt at the point of the cross. In other words. He didn’t do it with ALL the intention. So, the intentions make someone good, or the actions make someone good. I thing we are not good, not because our intentions but because our actions.
If someone wants to grow to be a better person, what matters is what he does, not the intentions. If I try to know trough introspection if I love someone, for sure I would be lost with the obsession. I just have to act with actions of love.
It’s actually destructive to implant in someone the idea that for you, to be good or try to be good, you have to control every intention in your heart. I say it for personal experience, and for the experience of the people that i’ve helped as a psychologist.
LikeLike
January 19, 2016 at 12:06 am
Jose, thanks for the comment! I think there was a misunderstanding. I agree with what you are saying. I’m not saying that doing something good out of the fear of negative consequences makes it bad. I’m saying that doing something good does not make someone a good person. Someone is only a doer of good no matter what their reasons are for doing it. Actions are more important than intentions.
LikeLike
January 19, 2016 at 5:20 pm
Hello Ryan,
Yet again there seems to be an expectation we need this standard to get anywhere in relation to morality, without really explaining why, or how it influences it. You make the mistake to assume everyone thinks there is or should be an absolute morality; when I say that “one only needs to look at the fact we are all humans” I am referring to the fact that our morality is influenced predominately by he fact that we are social animals, that we see moral decision making through the gaze of our own individuality and yes that we will disagree often with our neighbor. If you wish to call that relative morality that is fine, but there is no reason why we should think otherwise.
In your analogy of the two husbands counting their money, you suggest that morality is how much money they have, and their moral interpretation is their own idea of how much money they have. This would mean that you could positively prove either one right or wrong. All they would have to do is compare their own thoughts on how much money they have with how much money they actually have.
There is no such method for morality, indeed what actually happens is you use YOUR own estimation on how much money they have, and compare it with their estimation of how much money there is to ascertain whether they are wrong or right.
A better analogy would be to say that the two husbands disagree over the best flavor for ice-cream, then you come in and say: “it is chocolate, because my book tells me it is”. Yet anyone else can come in and say “no I read the same book better than you, and it is actually strawberry” forgetting the fact that the human body is made to like sugar (the fact we are all human).
The point is, perhaps a world without an absolute morality might seem scary or senseless, but it is the only world that can be described. And just because it would be easier or “better” if we had one, it does not mean it exists.
Thanks again for replying to my earlier comments 🙂
WAH
LikeLike