Meowt 🙏➡️ ~ Sometimes, what works is better than what's right

 Should you be good, or should you do good?

Let no one be misled by this—I’m not an atheist. I’m an ever-believing Christian. But what many don’t know about me is that I’m also really into philosophy, and I lean toward the utilitarian school of thought.

On one side, you have the moralist view; live with virtue, follow the rules, never compromise on what’s “right”, even if the consequences are messy. On the other, there's the utilitarian view; maximize impact, minimize harm, even if it means crossing some moral lines. Do what helps the most. Do what works. It might sound cold on paper… until you realize we already do this in real life, all the time.

Think about chess. You sacrifice a pawn to protect your queen or to force a checkmate. It’s not cruelty—it’s strategy. In business and economics, companies make hard decisions—layoffs, budget cuts, product shutdowns—not out of malice, but because survival or long-term success demands it. Governments do it. Leaders do it. You probably did it the last time you chose a “stable” career over a passion, or gave up sleep to study, or paused a dream to support family.

We constantly give up something—time, comfort, dreams, even people—for something greater. We make trade-offs. That’s what decision-making is. So if we accept sacrifice in everyday life, why do we flinch when it comes to moral decisions that carry higher stakes?

Here’s a powerful example; A group of U.S. soldiers is retreating from enemy fire. One of them is badly injured, slowing the team down. If they stay, they risk being caught or killed. If they leave him behind, they might escape—and maybe even save others by reaching their mission target. The injured soldier knows this… and chooses to stay behind. To give up his life so the team can move forward. That’s not weakness. That’s strength. That’s sacrifice. That’s heroism. But now flip it. What if someone else on the team suggested it? What if the leader said, “You need to stay behind so we can survive”? Suddenly it feels wrong. Cold. Inhuman. Even though the logic, and the result, remains the same.Why? Because we cling to this idea that being “good” must always feel good, that morality should never be uncomfortable, and that intentions matter more than outcomes. But what if doing what feels morally “right” actually makes the world worse off?

Let’s be clear—I’m not dismissing morality. It’s essential. It gives us empathy, compassion, and a framework for how to treat others. It’s important to do what’s right and to live with integrity. But sometimes, doing what’s seemingly right in the moment leads to more harm in the long run. And at that point, are we truly being “good,” or just trying to protect our own conscience?

From my point of view, it takes a brutally honest conscience, a strong sense of clarity, and yes, an intelligent mind, to make a utilitarian decision. It's not easy. It doesn't always feel good. But sometimes—it’s what needs to be done.

So I ask again; Should you be good, or should you do good?