Not necessarily.
One might argue that a degree of private vice is a necessary component of public good. (Think of the Borgias.)

You're also running together goodness and rightness, and making a claim about getting caught - which has nothing to do with the moral question.

EDIT: Your last sentence doesn't make any sense at all.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:24, 1 reply)

See where I say "ignoring a sense of right and wrong"
...That's me saying "I think saying you should behave morally can be taking as read. If you don't then there are other reasons to do such. Here's a statistical one".

(Nature has several examples where an organism benefits from altruism. Because under some circumstances the creatures displaying altruistic behaviour have done better than those that didn't.)

I've used goodness and rightness to mean the same thing because, in the context I used them, they do.
(teebie jeebie, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:57, closed)

Humptyism.
It's clear to anyone who's used the words that there's a huge difference between them. You can't be a Humpty Dumpty and ignore that.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 13:25, closed)