Goodness and Righteousness

Waldmark, 19 June 2008

This Ipistle explores the difference between the two concepts of goodness and righteousness.

Goodness and righteousness are regarded by many as meaning more or less the same thing. I would like to assert that they address markedly different concepts indeed. Goodness, really, means ‘as God intended’ whereas righteousness, although an essential characteristic of God, means conforming to (moral) law. Good and goodness nowadays cover many other concepts and attitudes, such as kindness; experiencing something as pleasant; being agreeable. The essence of the word goodness, however, means ‘serving its purpose well.’

An example to explore the difference.

Let’s say a neighbour has bought a new dog about two months ago and this dog barks at night. Constantly. Keeping you awake, night after night after night, and after you’ve finally fallen asleep, it’s waking you up at six am. You have caused your neighbour no offense. You have lived in peace with him and you have done nothing that would induce your neighbour to set his dog barking against you. In fact, the only reason the dog barks at night is simply because your neighbour doesn’t control it.

Many people would think that it is goodness when you do not blame your neighbour. After all, many would reason, he does not cause to dog to bark, and maybe the dog has still not adapted to its new environment so the dog can’t be blamed either. So there you are, lying awake at night and you can’t sleep and in your goodness you do not blame your neighbour, you do not pick a fight and you do not even confront him (making a remark to a dog-lover about his/her dog’s behaviour is essentially the same as picking a fight). You just tolerate it. That is goodness. Right?

[page]

No, it is not!

This is not goodness at all. To the contrary. Every person should be able to sleep undisturbed in his or her own home. This might be considered a basic human right. When a neighbour deprives you of that right, through his actions or, in this case, his lack of actions, then goodness does not depend on what you do or don’t do; it simply remains an offence on the part of the neighbour to deprive you.

It is up to you, of course, to either get angry or resist from blaming your neighbour, but whatever the course of action you decide upon, the fact remains that your neighbour is depriving you of one of your basic human rights. It is not goodness to tolerate a barking dog. Or whatever offence someone may perpetrate against you. Goodness has nothing to do with it.

Neither is it righteousness.

Righteousness is when the neighbour whose dog is keeping you awake is punished for not taking the proper action to prevent his dog from disturbing you. I am not advocating that you should be the person to punish that neighbour. But a judge ordering the neighbour to control the dog would be righteousness. Or ordering the dog removed or killed if the animal cannot be controlled.

Yet none of these are goodness. Goodness is when the neighbour takes care not to let his dog disturb you in the first place, because that is how a neighbour should act. Goodness is when you can sleep undisturbed in your own home because that is how things are meant to be. People function well after a night’s sleep, it is the design according to which humans are made. But people will start to loosing sharpness, edge, and competence if night after night they are deprived of sleep. Humans are not designed to go without sleep so how can it can be goodness to be exhausted from the lack of it.

Being tired is not good. Blaming a neighbour with a barking dog or not blaming a neighbour does not change the fact humans need sleep. Tolerating the infringement of human rights is not goodness and neither is it righteousness.

[page]

Goodness is when things are the way they are meant to be. Righteousness is the force that, after things have gotten out of sync with goodness, adjust them to their proper state.

In our example, goodness is when you can sleep at night and you and your neighbour get on well. That is the proper state of affairs. When something disturbs that equilibrium, a barking dog for instance, then righteousness is any action that restores the state of goodness. An accident could kill the dog, a judge could order the dog removed, or the neighbour could realise he is causing harm and take action to control his dog. All three options are workings of righteousness that produce goodness.

It is indicative of how far both goodness and a proper understanding of righteousness are removed from our world, that most people would regard the dog having an accident as very bad and a sorry ending for the dog, would regard the second option as far too severe on the part of the judge and totally out of proportion, and would only consider option three appropriate. Whereas in fact every one of these options achieves exactly the same objective of restoring goodness. Every one of these options is a fitting act of righteousness. Where they differ though, is in the emotions they stir up.

Tags: goodness, righteousness, Bible Study