Friday, September 7, 2012
To Be Or Not To Be A Saint
Yesterday, we asked a basic question about whether PURITY should be an ideal and we wholeheartedly agreed that much of the answer to this question depended a great deal on how one defined the term purity. In her article "Moral Saints," the philosopher Susan Wolf polemically writes "that moral perfection, in the sense of moral saintliness, DOES NOT constitute a model of personal well-being toward which it would be particularly rational or good or desirable for a human being to strive." Wolf's statement certainly seems controversial. Do you agree or disagree with her statement? Shouldn't we at the very least strive for moral perfection? If not, what should we aim for in life? Please respond to this post in 7-10 thoughtful and well-written sentences. Thank you and looking forward to reading your responses.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If moral saintliness entails bringing the most happiness to the most people, then I disagree. I believe that any person's ultimate goal should be to make AS many people AS happy AS possible. If Susan Wolf's definition of moral perfection is akin to a state of real altruism, then it IS something rational, good, and desirable, perhaps even the ONLY rational/good/desirable thing. Life is a struggle to be happy, so behaviors that can lead to an achievement (if fleeting) of this ambition, as long as they don't impede OTHERS' happiness, are always worthwhile. Moreover, an individual should strive for moral perfection for his or her own sake. To quote the Buddha, “We are formed and molded by our thoughts. Those whose minds are shaped by selfless thoughts give joy when they speak or act. Joy follows them like a shadow that never leaves them.” You only have what you give! Love your neighbor as yourself!! Smile like you mean it!!! Okay I'm done.
ReplyDeleteI think in order to answer this question you need to figure out and define what moral saintliness. For the purpose of my argument, I'll view it as following all sets of rules whatever you believe in has set out for you and striving to uphold them with a good intention. Though, will upholding these rules REALLY make you happy with life and a better person? I don't think moral saintliness is something we should strive for in everyday life because in the end, I believe it will actually hinder you from doing what you really desire to do. You need to live life with good intentions and realize that you cannot be perfect. In my mind, moral saintliness requires perfection and therefore is impossible to ultimately attain. Uphold your own moral values but realize you might not always be able to be saintly in all situations. Take life for what it is and live it, don't focus on being perfect.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, I personally do not believe that would could achieve saintliness. I don't believe that we should grow wanting to be perfect because it would make us not enjoy life. However, I think that we should try to be as a good person as we can be. By this I mean that we should try, as Alex said, make as much people happy as possible. However, we must not forget to make ourselves happy. I think that we have to be selfish at times and by definition, this is wrong. This is an example of how we can not truly achieve saintliness. At the end of your life, you will not have achieve saintliness and neither would you have enjoyed your life. Something that makes us human is the fact that we make mistakes and we learn from them. If we go through life trying not to make mistakes, what are we learning?
ReplyDeleteI do not believe we should strive for perfection in any way, moral or otherwise, because it is impossible. Everyone makes mistakes, and no one can be good all the time; aiming for the impossible doesn't make sense. Especially since the definition of morality is so broad and relative, allowing your entire life to be defined by the question "is this moral?" makes you lose sight of useful questions such as, "is this kind?", or "is this wise?", or is this "something that I that would make me or others happy?".
ReplyDeleteAlso, the world isn't black and white, and the idea of moral perfection takes a far too simplistic view of things. There is not always good or bad. Very often there is bad and worse or bad and differently bad. What does the saint do in those situations?
I think that striving for morality is a big part of most peoples' life. I know I strive for morality and if people didn't then our civilization wouldn't work the way it does now. I think morality allows people to be more confident when facing tough problems in life. This is one of the reasons why many people strive for morality. Morality gives people the ability to make the correct choices and I think that most people want that in life. I disagree with this argument, because by trying to gain morality we are trying to find us something to help us in life. I don't think you necessarily have to be a perfectly moral person and make the morally right decision in every case, but having morality as a goal in life is helpful in the long run.
ReplyDeleteWhat is pure or impure? This question is different for every single human being. All of us have different limits on what is good for us and what is bad for us. For some, a tattoo can be good for one, but it can be unnatural for another. One cannot set purity to be a goal because then you will never find happiness in your life; you will spend life thinking about your choices and opportunities instead of living them and making the best out of them. I DON’T think we should strive for moral perfection, but instated be cautious of our decisions, and reach for the best you can be.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a point in saying that it's irrational to strive for something we could never possibly achieve, such as perfection, of anything, even moral perfection. So it's irrational in that sense. But I also think it would be bad to strive toward moral perfection because there isn't necessarily a clear definition of it. One person could think they're on their way to moral perfection and perhaps another person considers their behavior and actions to be immoral or not morally perfect. On the other hand, I think that we should strive for it, but perhaps in a different way. We should strive to follow the law, and our own religious moral codes, assuming we have them, and help people, and do good, and not do bad things like steal or kill or push people into lockers and things. The thing is, saints don't exist in real people. People are not angels, they are not perfect. If we spent all our time trying to be exactly like what is supposedly this idea of perfect morals, we would drive ourselves insane, assuming that ever putting your own needs in front of someone else's could be considered immoral or selfish. Imagine if it were impossible for us to be immoral. Physically impossible. Depending on what the definition of moral is, it would be awful. No one would ever be able to indulge in anything or enjoy themselves. And it occurs to me that perhaps I sound like I'm making generalizations and I kind of am but it's because I'm taking it to the extreme. I think ultimately, because we cannot achieve moral perfection, we should not strive for it, only strive to be as moral as any human can.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe humans should strive for the mass idea of "moral perfection" because it takes the joy and interest of new and unknown experiences that may be perceived as unsaintly. One shouldn't want to have the idea of reaching saintliness ingrained in their heads because the definition of saintliness and purity hold different meanings for different people. Trying to reach some sort of moral perfection will drive a person crazy and I think it trying to reach that level is completely unnecessary to live a fully happy life. I wouldn't be happy if I worked for moral purity every second of my life. I wouldn't enjoy any of my life. I don't agree with Wolf's statement because I see the strive for moral sainthood, for lack of a better term, as a fun-sucking recipe. Be the best person you can be, but don't work any harder than that.
ReplyDeleteI say do whatever floats your boat. If you strive to be pure, good for you. If you want to raise hell, I give you a green light. How we perceive ourselves should not necessarily have such a weighted part in how pure we are. Different people define purity in many different ways. so therein lies the issue; how one person describes purity might not seem pure to another person. purity should not be something that people set as a goal for themselves, Purity should be a state of mind. purity should mean inner peace. You should go out and experience the world before you over-analyze every little thing that you do in it.
ReplyDeleteAs everybody else has pointed out, purity and "the right thing to do" is completely subjective. Absolute moral perfection is therefore ultimately unattainable. I don't think many people, even those who strive for it, would disagree with that. However, just because the destination is impossible doesn't change the honor of the process. One who attempts moral perfection will obviously slip up, but they'll still lead a more ethically upright life than their neighbor that doesn't attempt perfection whatsoever. Somebody who tries for total purity will inevitably lead a rather vapid life, but it's an admirable cause so long as the subject isn't under the naive impression that there is actually such thing.
ReplyDeleteTrying to hit a target as unachievable and vague as the term "moral perfection," is an incredibly wasteful life goal. As far as definitions go, much of the world defines morality and moral perfection in a Judeo Christian sense. There is nothing wrong with that, but if this large mass of people directed their life towards a goal that some egotistical old men wrote about a few thousand years ago, the world as we know it would come to a stand still. The way moral purity is defined is a very narrow scope of the word. It is a man's definition, to be perfectly blunt. It limits people, specifically women, by placing them on a pedestal. I am not an object, and I don't want to live my life in a "pure" way that dehumanizes me in that sense. Rules are not a blanket term; what is a good goal for one person may be horribly wrong for another. Aside from my angry feministic rant, I think that trying to uphold yourself to an antiquated standard is foolish. Our society has progressed since then, quite a lot if I may point out. These successes are from mistakes and lapses in judgement. They were not people looking to better the world. I don't agree with cut throat business practices, but we need to face that trying to fulfill a role that goes against our basic instinct is futile: we are selfish and animalistic. We are programmed to make a family and protect that family. Achieving moral perfection is hypocritical and contradictory, not to mention I find the idea somewhat insulting.
ReplyDeleteI believe that most religions put a specific label on what it means to have "morals" and what it means to be completely "pure". Unfortunately, a lot of those things conflict with the secular world, and create tensions between the "religious" and the people "of the world". I think the basic idea of being morally pure and saintly, is a a good concept. Although many people would disagree, if people strictly abided by the rules of "complete purity" a lot of the demons we face would not exist, or not in the way that they do today. Once a person is "tainted" they become "of the world" and secular culture conflicts with certain religious teachings of purity and/or righteousness. Striving to be completely pure is a difficult task that one has to take on wholeheartedly in order to achieve. I don't think a lot of people have enough will-power to give up the supposedly "impure" aspects of the world in order to achieve what some consider moral goodness. Purity, in it's simplest form, is a beautiful concept, but it's highly unlikely and unattainable. The secular world offers too many temptations, too many versions of what may or may not be the truth, and too many people standing as polar opposites for that sort of balance to actually occur. I don't think striving for complete moral goodness of extreme purity is really plausible, and people tend to end up becoming more and more unhappy as they embark on those sorts of journeys. I think it all depends on context, understanding of said religion/religious beliefs, and knowledge of one's own self.
ReplyDeletePeople believe babies to be "pure" because they have yet to be tainted by secular society, and they don't exhibit the same behaviors in their extremes that conscious adults of the world exhibit. Does this mean people should resort to childlike behaviors? No. This just means that there can be different stages of different forms of "purity" or moral goodness. I think people have to come into their own and need to learn the difference between "right" and "wrong". I believe people can truly be at peace when they base their life off of teachings based on moral goodness and purity, but it's not very realistic to try to achieve moral perfection. Everyone has their faults, which ultimately stem from societal things (people in our lives, situations, experiences, etc). I think the best thing a person can do is grow up with a knowledge of the larger world around them. Children need scruples instilled so that they can carry it on with them into adulthood. This doesn't make them saints, it just makes them better people.
I don't think that people should ever strive for purity or moral perfection. As some people already said, absolute perfection would be impossible to achieve because the idea of perfection is subjective. You cannot be considered perfect or consider yourself perfect if you cannot even agree with the people around you on what perfection is. The only reason I could see for wanting to be perfect is to find some kind of personal satisfaction from accomplishing perfection. But if perfection is impossible then if one were to seek it they would be perpetually unsatisfied with themselves. People should not try to be completely pure because it is a fruitless endeavor.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I just don’t know. It might turn out that after this life, ‘morally perfect’ (we already agreed it's subjective) people get 10,000 dollars and a free car and access to the HOV lane in Heaven. In which case, I would be like, ‘Yeah! Let’s strive for moral perfection!’
ReplyDeleteBut come on. In a realistic sense, I don’t think it will make us happy. It may provide us with a little burst of hope every now and then, but that hope has nothing to do with the physical world. And in a way, striving for such a vague term secludes us from a lot of people. Why do religions want moral goodness? Well, they want it because they think they’ll be rewarded for it. But then you run into the problem of looking at other people like they’re less than you are, and that doesn’t actually make you feel so high and mighty. See, the path to moral goodness is lonely, and it’s hard. So if you want to strive for it, go for it. But don’t expect a lot company.
And maybe I’m being unfair. Maybe some people think ‘moral perfection’ brings peace, but I don’t think looking back at all those times you didn’t have sex with that person are going to bring you a lot of peace. And I don’t think ‘moral perfection’ is something that comes naturally, because we humans have an instinct to live and experience, and ‘moral perfection’ kind of disagrees with those instincts. In a way, moral perfection has a lot to do with being anxious, because religion has a lot to do with humans being anxious. So if it’s comforting, okay. But that doesn’t mean I need it, too.
I think that life would be boring if everyone strived for the same goal (moral perfection). In addition, to make it even more complicated, "moral perfection" is an extremely wishy-washy term, with no one definition. So, if we all tried to be a "moral saint", not only would we be dedicating our lives to a seemingly unobtainable goal, but the world would be lacking in variety. One of the cooler things in this world is that everyone has different goals and ambitions. By creating a single, "more important" goal, we lose a level of individuality.
ReplyDeleteInstead, I would propose that we all have more reasonable goals. Instead of striving to be a vague concept of a person that may or may not exist, try to be real and impact the world in ways other than just "being moral"