In my paper, I will be addressing Susan Wolf's claim 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." Throughout Susan Wolf's paper about moral saints, she examines the notion of a moral saint and why such a person would be very unattractive. Wolf discusses the notion of a moral saint by differentiating between the Loving Saint and the Rational Saint. The Loving Saint is the saint that derives happiness from others' happiness, versus the Rational Saint who acts out of duty. It is a difference between the motive of love and the cost of sacrificing one's self interests over others. Wolf considers the moral saint to be "unattractive " because this person would be bland and boring and not possess the qualities one would want, such as "a healthy, well-rounded, richly developed character. " Within her paper, Susan Wolf consistently puts down the theory of the moral saint. I will be arguing against Susan Wolf's claim that being this "moral saint " is not something humans want to become.
I will be outlining in my paper two arguments that will assert my argument against Susan Wolf's claim. The first argument is a surface level reason, which is that Susan Wolf's argument is solely based on speculation. What I mean by this is that she sets her own standards for what a moral saint is. I will go further in depth on this matter, in addition to briefly talking about whether the existence of the moral saint is possible, later on in my paper. My second argument for fighting against Wolf's claim is that morality is necessary for people and that striving to be as moral as can be is not a bad thing for people in society. After all, should we not strive to be the best version of ourselves morally? Is it not our job as humans to help others and make the world a better place? These are just a few questions and thoughts that I will be further discussing in my paper.