I don’t think the question is whether or not good should be rewarded while evil should be punished, but it’s how we as a society can’t expect anyone to behave well if there is no reward. Is it reasonable to assume that people would not do bad things if they weren’t going to be punished? No. That is why from a young age some kids will be taught that when they do a chore, they’ll get an allowance or when they do good on a test, they’ll get a prize. By creating a positive outcome through doing “good” things it encourages one to want to continue to do so. Whereas punishing “bad” actions motivates people to avoid repeating those behaviors. But that also brings in the point that there is no distinct universal definition of good or bad or in better terms those definitions change in small ways from person to person. So yes, generally morally correct things like treating people with kindness should be rewarded so people can choose to use things like compassion and selflessness towards others more often than not, but there isn’t always going to be a reward for choosing the “good” thing so people will have to learn to do so by their own accord. People also get away with doing bad things without being punished all the time, and because they don’t reap any consequences, they continue to do bad things. That is why the criminal justice system is in place to begin with, by instilling fear of being punished most people will avoid breaking the law. But that doesn’t mean people don’t find ways around it. It is more of a comfort thing to believe that by doing good, good will come back, and that karma exists for people who do bad things. That’s all it is though, a comfort thing, because if the world truly worked like that a lot less a lot less evil action would persist. Good should be rewarded but it can’t always be, so it is better to choose it because of one’s own moral fulfillment not because they expect something.
I’d like to say that I justify my fortune by working hard for it and truly deserving it, but that would be somewhat delusional for me to claim. Yes, I do dedicate myself to achieving my goals and sacrificing time to get things done, but that doesn’t mean more factors aren’t involved in my good fortune. I am aware that things like luck and privilege are heavy components of a positive outcome. However, being aware that I can’t just rely on my own commitment to success is an uncomfortable realization. What’s the point of even putting in hard work if you can’t control the luck that heavily decides the outcome? That is why so many people believe in the American dream and the meritocracy because it is so scary to think about how much is out of one’s control. It is comforting to believe that if you work hard, you can achieve anything but it’s not entirely true. A lot of this luck can be seen in the college process. You can work just as hard as someone else to get into a specific school, but schools don’t accept you based on the hard work they can’t see. However, being aware of how much luck has to do with good fortune doesn’t mean one should stop trying entirely. It is still necessary to put in effort towards a goal because it does increase the chances of success. It is important to realize that just because you work as hard as someone else doesn’t mean you will reach the same outcome. So don’t look down on others who don’t succeed where you do and it’s not fair for them to do the same. So, no, I don’t justify my good fortune. I try my best and hope that I am lucky enough for it to aid in my success.
People should act ethically simply because it aligns with their personal moral fulfillment not because of what they expect out of it. It is alarming to think that the only reason someone would choose to do good is out of fear of what would happen if they didn’t. So, people should choose good simply because they want to. Being kind to others should feel good without a reward, one can build stronger relationships and a better community by being nice out of the kindness of their heart. If everyone was choosing to act a certain way because of what they would gain no true good would ever occur. If one could build the belief system that doing good is the first instinct, then the world would be a much more positive and lighter place. If choosing to act ethically made one feel fulfilled on their own, then fewer negative actions would be taken. However, if people could be punished by choosing to follow an ethical standpoint, then there is a high chance that they would abandon trying to act good at all. That is why choosing to be good because it is what you believe in is stronger than choosing to be good based on how it will and won’t benefit you.
God allows the Satan to punish Job as a test of his faith in God. God didn’t permit punishment towards Job because he had done any wrong, in fact, Job in a lot of ways had done right since God saw him fit enough to withstand punishment and remain faithful. Though of course Job was not aware of this he just had to trust in God and that there was some form of justification for what was occurring, because if there wasn’t then what he believed in would be a lie. The “Book of Job” goes against the idea that doing good leads to reward and doing bad leads to punishment, as God’s way goes beyond human understanding. Job was punished because God needed him to show unwavering faith and then God rewarded Job in the end for being able to face so much struggle and loss and not curse God’s name. However, although Job technically got back double what he lost it still seems unfair that he had to face so many hardships that he did nothing to deserve. But this is because God’s way is not based on fairness, God is a divine and omnipotent being meaning he does not need to justify his actions in any way. Job was used by God to prove a point; Job’s purpose was beyond human comprehension and leads one to question whether or not it is worth choosing to do good over evil as following that path doesn’t necessarily mean good is bound to come back in return.