What (if anything) is wrong with being a
moral saint?
A moral saint is defined as being as “morally worthy as can be” (S. Wolf, 1982). There has been
debate in the literature debating whether or not there is anything wrong with being a moral saint.
In this essay, I will argue that there is nothing wrong with being a moral saint. First, I will briefly
outline why I believe there is nothing wrong with being a moral saint. Then, I will introduce
arguments proposed by Susan Wolf explaining what is wrong with being a moral saint, which I will
then counter. This will be the bulk of the essay. Initially, I will be arguing against Wolf’s idea that
being a moral saint crowd-out other nonmoral values that are required for a well-rounded
character. I shall conclude that life itself is demanding, and this alongside the benefits of being a
moral saint means that there is nothing wrong with being a moral saint.
Here, I will explain why I believe there is nothing wrong with being a moral saint. I believe aspiring
to be a moral saint not only makes sense, but also is a good thing. This is because the debate
around moral saints is the only time where I have come across the idea of being as morally worthy
as can be being a bad thing. Whenever in lectures, seminars, or reading articles, I cannot recall any
instances where something that was deemed morally good, right or permissible, was also deemed
bad, wrong, or impermissible. We have always condemned morally bad things, and strived towards
being morally good. Moreover, our upbringing is centered on making us good people. From these
initial thoughts, I believe it is a good thing to be a moral saint, since it is in keeping with how we
view morality outside of the moral saint debate. However, there are arguments proposed by Susan
Wolf against being a moral saint, and I will go into more detail about these now.
Now, I shall introduce Wolf’s arguments against the moral saint. In her paper Moral Saints, her
overall argument against moral saints is that being a moral saint “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” (1982). Essentially, people should not strive towards being a moral saint since it is
not good for them. Wolf expands upon this in her paper, and I shall discuss one way in which this is
carried out. One argument is that being a moral saint crowds-out nonmoral values that are
, necessary for developing a well-rounded character. I shall begin to explain this in more detain.
One way in which Wolf argues against being a moral saint is what I will call the Crowing-Out
Argument. Wolf expands on the earlier definition of a moral saint by explaining how a moral saint
upholds moral standards to a non-standard degree. This entails a concern that this would crowd-
out other values, particularly nonmoral values, which are deemed necessary for developing a
healthy, well-rounded character (S. Wolf, 1982). I understand where this is coming from, since an
individual cannot devote all of their time, energy, and efforts into everything that life offers them.
Humans have a limited lifespan and have access to limited resources – it would seem that it is
impossible for someone to both be a moral saint and go about anything that is nonmoral, such as
watching television, painting, or other hobbies. However, although this argument includes “what” it
means to be a moral saint, it fails to define “how” someone goes about becoming one. I shall
explain this in more detail now as a counterargument.
If we begin to consider how a person can become a moral saint, then we can start to refute the
Crowding-Out Argument. Let us think about different ways in which someone can go about living a
morally good life. Here are three examples of what an individual can do (it is worth nothing that this
list is not exhaustive):
1. Volunteering at a care home.
2. Tutoring a student outside of their regular teaching hours.
3. Campaigning to increase the proportion of tax paid by those on higher incomes.
Now, I will explain why these actions in particular are in this list, and what is involved in going about
these:
1. Volunteering at a care home:
a. This involves: spending time with those who may have otherwise been lonely, and
helping others go about their day, whether this relates to a person’s needs or making
the day a bit more enjoyable.
b. Why this is morally good: practices values such as respect (for the elderly) and
responsibility.
moral saint?
A moral saint is defined as being as “morally worthy as can be” (S. Wolf, 1982). There has been
debate in the literature debating whether or not there is anything wrong with being a moral saint.
In this essay, I will argue that there is nothing wrong with being a moral saint. First, I will briefly
outline why I believe there is nothing wrong with being a moral saint. Then, I will introduce
arguments proposed by Susan Wolf explaining what is wrong with being a moral saint, which I will
then counter. This will be the bulk of the essay. Initially, I will be arguing against Wolf’s idea that
being a moral saint crowd-out other nonmoral values that are required for a well-rounded
character. I shall conclude that life itself is demanding, and this alongside the benefits of being a
moral saint means that there is nothing wrong with being a moral saint.
Here, I will explain why I believe there is nothing wrong with being a moral saint. I believe aspiring
to be a moral saint not only makes sense, but also is a good thing. This is because the debate
around moral saints is the only time where I have come across the idea of being as morally worthy
as can be being a bad thing. Whenever in lectures, seminars, or reading articles, I cannot recall any
instances where something that was deemed morally good, right or permissible, was also deemed
bad, wrong, or impermissible. We have always condemned morally bad things, and strived towards
being morally good. Moreover, our upbringing is centered on making us good people. From these
initial thoughts, I believe it is a good thing to be a moral saint, since it is in keeping with how we
view morality outside of the moral saint debate. However, there are arguments proposed by Susan
Wolf against being a moral saint, and I will go into more detail about these now.
Now, I shall introduce Wolf’s arguments against the moral saint. In her paper Moral Saints, her
overall argument against moral saints is that being a moral saint “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” (1982). Essentially, people should not strive towards being a moral saint since it is
not good for them. Wolf expands upon this in her paper, and I shall discuss one way in which this is
carried out. One argument is that being a moral saint crowds-out nonmoral values that are
, necessary for developing a well-rounded character. I shall begin to explain this in more detain.
One way in which Wolf argues against being a moral saint is what I will call the Crowing-Out
Argument. Wolf expands on the earlier definition of a moral saint by explaining how a moral saint
upholds moral standards to a non-standard degree. This entails a concern that this would crowd-
out other values, particularly nonmoral values, which are deemed necessary for developing a
healthy, well-rounded character (S. Wolf, 1982). I understand where this is coming from, since an
individual cannot devote all of their time, energy, and efforts into everything that life offers them.
Humans have a limited lifespan and have access to limited resources – it would seem that it is
impossible for someone to both be a moral saint and go about anything that is nonmoral, such as
watching television, painting, or other hobbies. However, although this argument includes “what” it
means to be a moral saint, it fails to define “how” someone goes about becoming one. I shall
explain this in more detail now as a counterargument.
If we begin to consider how a person can become a moral saint, then we can start to refute the
Crowding-Out Argument. Let us think about different ways in which someone can go about living a
morally good life. Here are three examples of what an individual can do (it is worth nothing that this
list is not exhaustive):
1. Volunteering at a care home.
2. Tutoring a student outside of their regular teaching hours.
3. Campaigning to increase the proportion of tax paid by those on higher incomes.
Now, I will explain why these actions in particular are in this list, and what is involved in going about
these:
1. Volunteering at a care home:
a. This involves: spending time with those who may have otherwise been lonely, and
helping others go about their day, whether this relates to a person’s needs or making
the day a bit more enjoyable.
b. Why this is morally good: practices values such as respect (for the elderly) and
responsibility.
