Why should one do that which is good? No, I don't think that good is synonymous with, "something one ought to do". For example, most people would agree that selling all your worldly possessions and donating the money to charity is something that would be good. However, that doesn't mean that one is obligated to do so. Please input into this conversation with your own takes. — Hyper

There are so many launching points in this OP that it's hard to choose a start. But, time is a wasting, so, ...

All weakness, finally, is immoral. That is to say, to weaken the position of the most morally intended choosers is NOT WISE and therefore 'selling all you own' in a Capitalist economy is DUMB, and weak, therefore immoral, not moral. Misunderstanding morality DOES NOT HELP.

Flip the script. If that same chooser is in a situation of Communism, it becomes meaningless to say 'sell', in most senses. Real Communism would be defined by forced balance of per capita wealth per person. That would mean there would be no real 'buying' and 'selling' as we commonly colloquially speak of these actions.

Also, the mere existence of and labelling of a financial or distributional entity as a charity is no even near certainty of moral aims. That presumption would not bare up under any meaningful examination in modern times in the West, let alone just in general. #SupportMyDrinkingHabit(Charity)

The word 'obligation' to me has a too orderly stance to me at least. Moral duty is NOT best expressed using that term. Moral duty is more of a 'should', not a 'must' and more of a 'proper aim' than an obligation, if you follow. Likewise, it can be confusing to speak of the 'burden' of choice, rather than the privilege of 'free will'.

But, let's go back to the core question ...

The core question is really 'why should one do that which is GOOD?' Another point there is that the word 'good' colloquial is entirely insufficient as stated. One ... SHOULD ... clarify that term by mentioning perfection. The singleton of GOOD is the single point of objective moral perfection. And now the subjectivists can start their horridly immoral banter and set of objections to objectivity. So, ANYWAY, by GOOD I mean THE GOOD, that impossible perfect intent.

The implausibility of the perfect GOOD is what makes Pragmatists sinners par none. They improperly (immorally) believe that because perfection is unlikely in the extreme (the limit as intent approaches impossible) that in fact it is right NOT TO TRY. I call this cowardice 'intending to fail'. Really it is one of the clear nadirs of all philosophy, BUT, I digress.

The core question again RE-STATED is JUST the one word, 'WHY?' All wisdom comes from deontological intent, so WHY is the only real question. Again, there is NO OTHER question in the universe, finally.

---

So at long last we have laid the framework in which we can attempt to answer the question with a currently responsible level of clarity. If we do not frame it BETTER 10 years from now, there has been a rather unfortunate failure somewhere. Progress SHOULD be made.

Why bother with GOOD? What SHOULD is there really?

It's alarmingly simple and yet infinite in complexity at the same time, like all meaningful questions and as mentioned, 'why' is really the only one.

There is only ONE consequence in the universe from aligning oneself or approaching or intending (all synonymous in some ways) the GOOD. That is GENUINE happiness. One MUST say genuine amid this explanation or the real effect is lost, presumed, perverted; every error that can be made will be.

Morality is THE single hardest thing that there is. Free will is really the only thing in existence and its goal is moral choice via THAT agency, the agency of free will. The ONLY guiding force in the universe is the consequences of choice(s). So, happiness and unhappiness ARE NOT 'feelings'. They are more core than that as in they are a receding percentage of consequences to all choice, at first effectively somehow 50% in general likelihood, or, let's say we can imagine that split as easy to discuss.

Since more and more moral choices are harder and harder to make, the consequence MUST BE in truth, more and more alluring. I assert that it is. The issue is that more and more moral choices require more and more effort within each virtue. Only a virtue can balance out another virtue. An overexpressed virtue becomes a vice. And this is the EXPLANATION for disingenuous happiness, a COMMON thing. The systemic consequence for a choice CONTINUES on its maximal trajectory, infinitely. But, GENUINE happiness is bent back towards the singleton of perfect GOOD by the OTHER virtues. As such mere choosers everywhere are easily confused (deluded) into following those infinite hyperbolas AWAY from objective GOOD. Imagine how hard it is to 'do better than you have ever done before', at a certain point. And yet this is the only choice SET that will lead you to the experience of greater GENUINE happiness. So, therein is revealed quite basically the central trouble of moral choice.

WHY? Because perfection! That is why!

Perfection is the cause of desire. The fact that collapsed time CONTAINS a single point of perfection CAUSES desire to exist. Yet and still, the realization of desire is often a cause of rot and ruin, a disintegration of everything. That is because the single linear path to the singleton of perfection CHANGES based on one's current moral state. So, this is the proof for SUBJECTIVE experience amid a universe with OBJECTIVE moral truth. Choosing to remain deluded (subjective) is indeed a type of failure (and always will be).

The perfect CANNOT be the enemy of the GOOD. The perfect IS the GOOD. The perfect is not the enemy of anything except immorality, imperfection, weakness. And to those even still it is NOT really an enemy. In loving perfection, they are included and forgiven. Figure it out!