Must the Best Person Always Do the Most Moral Good?

If an hour spent practising piano could instead be used to help someone, does continuing to practise show that a person is not good enough? The question quietly replaces “meeting moral obligations” with “making every action produce as much moral good as possible”. They are not the same.

In her 1982 paper “Moral Saints”, Susan Wolf defines a moral saint as someone whose every action is as morally good as possible. She is not praising selfishness. She questions whether this personality should be a complete ideal of life. If every hour, talent and interest must serve the maximisation of moral goodness, humour, music, personal pursuits and some forms of friendship may be permitted only when they assist morality. Her target is morality’s domination of every domain, not the existence of moral constraints.

The issue remains disputed. Some argue that personal pursuits cannot readily take priority over severe suffering that could be prevented. Others hold that human excellence includes values not wholly measured by morality. My judgement is that morality first establishes firm boundaries against harm and deception, together with duties to assist. Beyond those boundaries, a person should still be able to devote part of life to music, inquiry and close relationships. Declining to maximise good in every hour does not license using “being myself” to evade a concrete obligation.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2026228