Assume for the sake of argument that there are plausible non-religious grounds for being moral (for some a tough pill to swallow!). Models of supererogatory action differ among moral philosophers, but many of them rely on a fundamental intuition: that there are certain actions that ought not to be seen as morally obligatory but that are nonetheless morally praiseworthy.
It seems clear that if moral obligations are perceived negatively-that is as practical do's and don'ts accompanied by some form of social sanction, then there is a limit to how much altruism it is fair for us to expect from each other: if morality is essentially rules of non-interference, the lack of extreme benevolence ought not to incur moral blame. However, a purely negative notion of morality does not satisfy our common-sense moral intuitions, surely we have deep moral obligations to each other, implementing the formula of humanity in our lives (qua idealistic Kantian!) must require more extensive sacrifice than the mere commitment to abstain from molesting each other.
But if we want a richer morality, if we set the 'upper bound' of moral obligatoriness higher, does this commit us to the pursuit of moral sainthood? Does "being good" require the pursuit of "being perfect?" (at this point some of the more theologically inclined may be thoroughly resenting our initial assumption)...
Is the realm of the supererogatory ultimately illusory since the majority of the acts that fit into the "morally admirable" category are really moral duties not admirable options? But if discharging our duties requires a radical commitment to supererogation, what room is there left for the nonmoral perfectionistic virtues of a balanced and well-rounded life?
How good is good enough?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Yes, I think being good includes a desire to move towards being perfect. I also believe that perfoming a moral duty is morally admirable since there are plenty examples of individuals who understand their moral duty but fail to do it. I applaud those who day by day simply do their moral duty.
Two separate realms of morality: one of obligation, and one of admirability? I might call this the differnce between decency and sainthood.
Saints exist (perfect or not). We know they're saints, we call them saints, and we admire them greatly. I like to be admired, whether it's my moral obligation or not, but I'm not a saint. Somtimes, I'm not even decent. In fact, the pervading drive in my life is down, not up. Overall, it seems there's an up and a down. Decent or saint, it's still up. There arn't two realms of morality at all. It's just up or down.
Naturally I do not want to maintain that obligatoriness and admirability are mutually exclusive. But there remains, I think, a decent problem here, despite my perhaps feeble way of presenting it. Let me put it a different way and using terms used by both commentators: being good may indeed include a 'desire' to be ultimately worthy. But a desire is not an obligation. It's different to say "I desire to be as perfect as I can be" as opposed to "being a moral person means that you 'ought' (in the normative sense) to maximize the moral worth of every action."
I agree that 'doing one's duty' is morally admirable, intrinsically, and because we sometimes fail/'the pervading drive is down.' But let me clarify what I rather vaguely referred to as a 'realm' of morality. I simply mean to imply the idea of a margin between the set of duties that morality rightly claims of us and actions that go 'above and beyond' the call of duty. If there is no margin, a possible consequence would be limitless duty, an obligation to maximal morality, to the all-consuming pursuit of moral sainthood.
We can, I suggest, find good reasons to praise and even try to come closer to emulating the saintly ideal. But I do not think the admission that we are not saints ought to be defensive. Just because decency and sainthood are both up doesn't mean we can't distinguish between different heights of 'up'! Certain types of decency ought to always be obligatory, sainthood properly characterized, ought never to be.
thanks for interesting comments.
There are certainly different levels of up. Point well taken.
THIS IS A DISCALIMER:
''''''VERY LONG WINDED''''''
(I do assert its cogency)
In my old blog, Rmantraining, I explored the concept of community, especially community-driven individuality. Perhaps because my pet idea was either an oxymoron or paradox, it drew heavy, debilitating fire. Still, it remains strikingly usefull.
1) Everyone is obligated, (has a duty), to the community, but the duties naturally differ
2) The community suffers if the individual suffers, and vice versa
3) In community, it is impossible to concieve of the individual outside of community, and vice versa.
Some definitions:
Selfish (down): self-serving, but ultimatly deleterious for the individual (either directly, or through the suffering of the community).
Saintly (up): Community-serving, and ultimatly benificial for the community-driven individual, (I claim this is the only truly viable version of individuality).
Now for your question:
In community, there are many needs, and there are many different kinds of people to fufill them. But because the community is greater than the sum of its parts, it has a great need, greater than the sum of needs: it is the need for love.
To keep the community alive, then, community-driven individuals must go "above and beyond" the individual needs, and seek to fill this great need. To the extent that an individual suceeds, to that extent are they most truly a saint and a community-driven individual.
Just as individual members of a community obtain their special identity from the community, so the individual needs attain their identity from the great need.
Doubtless, there is a sliding scale here, and you're quite right to asert the evidence for a difference between "Doing one's duty", and "going above and beyond". Duty is filling individual needs without filling the great need. It must be done to prevent the community's immeadiate death. Sainthood is filling the great need. The difference between decency and sainthood is the difference between palliative care and cure.
In the short term, you're absolutly right to make a point about "different hieghts of up". In the long term, it's still the difference between life and death.
Of course, nobody is perfect, but where should we be headed? With the above disscussion of what a community is, it should be clear that a saint is not suddendly emeshed in a tyrannical to-do list of "above and beyond" duties. Instead, filling the great need is the focus. Within the context of community, of each individual playing a unique and distinct role, of the need to take care of oneself in order to better serve the community, and the understanding of the great need, there is clearly one up, and one down.
observation:
This argument hinges on the assertion that our world community is headed for disaster, due to the fact that not enough people are filling the great need, but simply doing their duty.
Post a Comment