The golden rule that is universally talked about is along the lines of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, which leads most people to believe that a person should always do good things and never bad things, right? But, what is considered right or wrong? What determines these outcomes? What are driving forces that tell people to act a specific way – if it is not religious or culturally driven? What is it? Before we begin, it should be noted that morality is subjective to the individual and circumstance – there is more than one answer and it is complex. So, why people feel the need to act morally can be discussed in numerous terms and perspectives, and has definitely been debated for years. However, for the sake of simplicity, let’s narrow it down to two categories: for yourself and for others. From here we will explore the perspectives of numerous philosophers such as, Aristotle, Kant, and more who have discussed this topic in order to draw some similarities and conclusions in hopes of potentially answering the broad question that is “why be moral?”.

Let’s first take the perspective that one would be moral for your own sake. It can be argued that self-interest is a motivational factor that pushes moral behaviour (because of potential benefits) and regulates bad behaviour (especially if one believes in the possibility of facing negative consequences). From a psychological egoism perspective, it is believed that everything we, as humans, do in life is deeply rooted in self-interest and egoism, where egoism is a doctrine that individual self-interest is the actual motivation behind all conscious actions (moral or immoral) (Beauchamp & Bowie, p.14-19). For example, it can be argued that donating to a charity although good in nature can be driven by the need to feel like you are contributing to society. Now, from a moral scepticism lens morality is