"To be morally good is to choose freely the good over what would be evil. You do not get moral credit for doing things about which you have no choice."
- Joseph Runzo: Gobal Philosophy Of Religion

My latest train of thoughts led me back to the problem of religious people doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. I think I might have finally found the key to the puzzle. Evidently something was wrong with the ways of Christianity. Until now I was just unable to focus on the main element. The hypothesis may be formulated in this way: good deeds are worthless when they are not done in good spirit. Meaning that the principle has a higher priority than the result. Thus it would not be enough to accidently help someone. The intention of the act counts as much if not more than the outcome. This of course is not to say that "accidents" and neutral or convenient acts can't have positive effects. The difference is simply that they have nothing to do with moral superiority. Therefore it is also not morally superior to do good only because someone (or something) else orders you to do it. Obeying orders has nothing to do with being good, no matter how positive the outcome. Orders have the function of taking away responsibility. Thus you cannot claim to be responsible for a good deed that you were ordered to do. Those who now object, correctly saying that every one of us is always responsible for what he's doing, no matter if commanded or not, are of course right but involuntarily discuss on the wrong level. There is definitely no doubt that we are all responsible for our actions, whether we are priests, assistant doctors, soldiers or whatever. However, this is not the question here. Everyone should understand though that there really is a difference between helping another person because you feel compelled to or because someone else commands you to. It is essential where the impulse comes from. And helping someone because you are commanded to is not an act of free will. It is simply an act of obedience. We may just as well say that it is the primary action that has to be evaluated. If we choose to help someone, the act of helping is the primary action. If we are commanded to help someone though, the primary action consists of the obeying of the command. The helping act becomes secondary. An involuntary side-effect so to speak. With that in mind I think that we should be careful to judge people by their actions. This especially applies to religious people. For in my eyes it does make a difference whether someone is good because he chooses to. Or whether he is good because his god commands him to. We may also view it from the other side. What is he truly afraid of? Is he afraid of creating negative effects, hurting other people or is he afraid of displeasing his god? What is it he truly cares about? What is his reason? This argument is evidently not yet concluded. I shall ponder on it some more.