I find the work of Immanuel Kant very interesting. In his Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals he discusses the moral value of actions. In the first two sections of that work he proposes some ethical propositions that have often returned to my mind in the twelve years since I first read them.
The first of these propositions differentiates praiseworthy behavior from moral action.
“To be beneficent when we can is a duty; and besides this, there are many minds to sympathetically constituted that, without any other motive of vanity or self-interest, they find a pleasure in spreading joy around them…But I maintain that in such a case an action of this kind, however proper, however amiable it may be, has nevertheless no true moral worth…”
Consider two situations:
Alfred is, by nature, a good man. He wishes nothing but goodwill towards others, is generous with his resources, and routinely helps his fellow man. Alfred discovers a mother and her young children in need of help, and so offers them food, shelter, and even money.
Bart is, by nature, not a good man. He is selfish, vain, cruel, and routinely ignores the plight of his fellow man. Bart also discovers a mother and her young children in need of help, and for some reason decides to give them the same assistance that Alfred offered.
Who has done the better good?
According to Kant Bart did. Alfred was already disposed towards aiding others, and so this behavior does not represent a move towards greater morality. Bart, however, went against his nature and made that move towards greater morality.
This, of course, presupposes that a man can have either a good or bad nature.
While reading The Once and Future King, by T.H. White, I encountered a character depiction that reminded me of this idea of the greater morality.
White has my favorite characterization of Lancelot. In his story Lancelot is not a good man by nature. He is vain, selfish, and he holds most of humanity in contempt. He is, by nature, rude and arrogant.
However, he is also self-aware. He realizes he is a jerk, and he also realizes it is his duty to not be so. So by conscious act he suppresses his natural inclinations and puts on a front of the perfect knight. People believe it, and he is praised as the most honorable, humble, and kind of the Knights of the Round Table. Even the Queen is fooled by his ruse and falls in love with this paragon of virtue.
Some people, aware of his inner thoughts, would say he was unworthy of such praise. I think Kant would claim otherwise. After all, the kind knights were just overcoming external foes. Lancelot overcame those external foes as well as some internal ones.