Wolf defines a moral saint as “a person whose every action is as morally good as possible” (“Moral Saints”, Journal of Philosophy, p.419), and furthermore, argues that both types of saints have severe implications. The loving saint is a saint out of love and the rational saint is a saint out of duty. Wolf is correct in arguing that that neither are ‘rational or good or desirable’ for a human being to strive and, as a result, we should not aim to be moral saints.
According to Wolf, one of the issues with the loving saint is that morality does not seem to be a “suitable object of passion” (“Moral Saints”, Journal of Philosophy, p.424) meaning that the passion of morality would defer any experience of joy. People naturally get joy from watching TV, buying unnecessary things, reading the latest gossip from magazines etc. In order to be a saint, you have to be as “morally worthy as can be” (“Moral Saints”, Journal of Philosophy, p.419) which would require you to substitute the simple pleasures in life for moral acts at every opportunity. For example, volunteering in a food kitchen rather than watching a TV programme. This is simply unfair upon the saint and very difficult to accept that someone could truly ‘love’, unless unaware of other pleasures other than to be moral, sacrificing their own pleasure all the time. If at any point the saint chose to do something for their own joy, they would automatically be discluded from the title of a moral saint as they have not been as morally worthy as they can be. This raises a further issue that to be a moral saint is impossible. To be as morally worthy as you can be requires substituting your own needs for the needs of others at all times. In which case, you could not eat, wash or have shelter because there will always be someone lacking these necessities where you could help them to obtain them. So, to be a moral saint is unrealistic as well as unachievable.
“The Rational Saint who sees [what the world has to offer] but forgoes it, one suspects of having a different problem– a pathological fear of damnation perhaps…” (“Moral Saints”, Journal of Philosophy, p.424). The implications for the rational saint that Wolf describes in this passage is that the rational saint is only moral because of fear. In this case, the saint could never be happy because they are constantly scared of suffering eternal ‘damnation’. Additionally, this would eliminate the title of being a moral saint at all because you are only being moral through fear of consequence. Therefore, your acts are immoral due to the selfish nature of them. Similarly, the problems that arise for the loving saint also apply to the rational saint. For example, they too would have to sacrifice their own needs and pleasures constantly to be classified as a moral saint.
“I don’t know whether there are any moral saints. But if there are, I am glad that neither I nor those whom I care most about are among them” (“Moral Saints”, Journal of Philosophy, p.419). I agree with what Wolf says here, because it would be impossible to form any close relationship with a moral saint. At first glance, a friend that is always there for you seems great but it is very difficult to retain a friendship with someone who only has positive things to say. In fact, it would become annoying. An integral part of friendship is mutual feelings and sometimes these feelings are negative towards other people. To be a moral saint would require you to not express your true feelings and moreover, not have negative feelings in the first place because to think morally is just as important as to act morally. So, without any close relationships with others, the moral saint would be lonely. This poses a circular problem for the saint because loneliness “sets us apart by making us more fragile, negative, and self-critical” (Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection, p.174). How is the saint supposed to be moral, when naturally they are feeling negative due to their own actions? It’s not rational. Therefore, Wolf is correct.
A weak area of Wolf’s work is that it could be mistaken to mean you should abandon morality completely. If we were to abandon morality completely, the world would be far more miserable than the world of a moral saint because it would be filled with anguish and evil. People would overdose on free will through a lack of moral rules and objectives. The key to living a good life is to find a balance of morality that does not constitute denying the self. The denial of the self is a consequence of being a moral saint that’s identified by Wolf- “The way in which morality, unlike other possible goals, is apt to dominate is particularly disturbing, for it seems to require either the lack or the denial of the existence of an identifiable, personal self” (“Moral Saints”, Journal of Philosophy, p.424).
In conclusion, I think that Wolf’s argument that “moral perfection, in the sense of moral saintliness, does not constitute a model of personal well-being towards which it would be particularly rational or good or desirable for a human being to strive” is strong. Through identifying two types of moral saints, she is able to identify implications that prove them to be irrational and impossible according to the world we live in. However, whilst not aiming to be a moral saint, people should find a balance of morality in their lives where they are able to feel happy at the same time.