Pros And Cons Of A Moral Saint

1. Wolf thinks one should not aim to be as morally good as possible because one does not pursue non-moral virtues and is not well-rounded. To be a moral saint, one lives by their moral virtues at the cost of not cultivating any non-moral virtues. A moral saint is one who acts as morally good as possible. In order to be a moral saint, one permits all moral virtues and inhibits non-moral virtues. Examples of moral virtues are; being considerate, courageous, and just. Whereas non-moral virtues include; appreciating humor, refined intellectual, artistic, and physical abilities. Wolf believes that in order to be a moral saint you must give up your desire to pursue non-moral virtues, which is not good. We should not live our lives dedicating them to morality, instead we should aim to be well-rounded and pursue both moral and non-moral virtues. One cannot be both a moral saint and well-rounded. Therefore, Wolf believes the life of a moral saint is undesirable because the moral saint does not have the ability to live an enjoyable and well-rounded life.

2. The first cause argument for g-d states that reality is one large sequence of causes, any …show more content…
Credibility is more than truth telling, it presupposes that we care about the truth. Liars care about the truth and bullshitters do not. Bullshitters intentionally deceive people. Even if their credibility is not damaged, their disregard for the truth can be more detrimental. For example, social media constantly provides the general public with bullshit and misrepresents current events. This misrepresentation convinces the public to believe something that is skewed and altered to attract viewers. People still believe social media and believe it is reliable even though it is bullshit. Frankfurt would believe the disregard for the truth is more damaging than credibility, therefore bullshitting is worse than