The Motivation of the Moral Saint

  • Christopher G. FramarinEmail author


Susan Wolf argues that the moral saint’s single-minded pursuit of the general welfare precludes the pursuit of non-moral ends – including non-moral virtues, interests, activities, relationships, and so on – for their own sakes. A life devoid of every such pursuit seems importantly deficient.

Vanessa Carbonell argues that Wolf assumes a strictly de dicto reading of the moral saint’s motivation. Wolf claims that the moral saint’s only non-derivative motivation is the motivation to improve the general welfare, thus described. On this reading, the moral saint’s motivation to alleviate a particular person’s hunger is derived entirely from the more basic motivation to improve the general welfare. Hence, the moral saint does not count the fact that the person is hungry as a direct reason to act. This seems inconsistent, however, with expectations about how the moral saint responds to suffering.

Carbonell argues that this problem can be avoided if the moral saint’s motivation to...



  1. Aboodi, Ron. 2017. One Thought Too Few: Where De Dicto Moral Motivation is Necessary. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 20 (2): 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blum, Lawrence A. 1988. Moral Exemplars: Reflections on Schindler, the Trocmes, and Others. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 13: 196–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carbonell, Vanessa. 2009. What Moral Saints Look Like. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 39 (3): 371–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carbonell, Vanessa. 2013. De Dicto Desires and Morality as Fetish. Philosophical Studies 163 (2): 459–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conee, Earl. 1994. The Nature and Impossibility of Moral Perfection. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54 (4): 815–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. King, Zoë A. Johnson. forthcoming. “Praiseworthy Motivations” Nous. Lawry, Edward. 2002. “In Praise of Moral Saints” Southwest Philosophy Review 18 (1): 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Louden, Robert B. 1988. Can We Be Too Moral? Ethics 98 (2): 361–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Scarre, Geoffrey. 1996. Utilitarianism. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Smith, Michael. 1994. The Moral Problem. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Sorensen, Kelly. 2004. The Paradox of Moral Worth. The Journal of Philosophy 101 (9): 465–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Svavarsdóttir, Sigrún. 1999. Cognitivism and Motivation. The Philosophical Review 108 (2): 161–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Williams, Bernard. 1981. “Persons, Character and Morality” in Moral Luck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wolf, Susan. 1982. Moral Saints. The Journal of Philosophy 79 (8): 419–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Department of Classics and ReligionUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations