Let us see if we can
combine Aristotle's theory of the Golden Mean, which holds that the good is a
ratio, virtue lies in the middle ground between two extremes, and that the
ethical behavior is in between one extreme of excess and one extreme of
deficiency, with the Christian doctrine of the Seven Deadly Sins, defining each
sin as an extreme of excess:
My statements will always
take the following form: First, the sin of excess, then, a naming of the
virtuous middle virtue, then the sin of deficiency. I will then state the topic
to which the degrees of too much or too little pertain.
Take this example: Too
Much, Just Right, Too Little. Virtue.
(1) Lust, Healthy
Sexuality, Involuntary Celibacy. Sex.
(2) Gluttony, Healthy
Eating, Anorexia. Eating.
(3) Envy, Inspiration
from Others' Achievements, Apathy towards Goals. Comparison and
Competitiveness.
(4) Pride, Self-Esteem
(but also being Humble and Grateful), Low Self-Esteem or Self-Criticism.
Self-opinion.
(5) Wrath, Righteous
Anger against Injustice, Complicity or Weakness. Anger.
(6) Sloth, Relaxation
and Enjoyment, Stress and Anxiety. Idleness or Laziness.
(7) Greed, Rational Self-Interest
and a Healthy Desire for Money and Ethical Selfishness, Poverty. Money.
If this is true, then
the Christians completely misunderstood their own doctrine, because they
believe that, for example, any desire for money is greed and is evil, or any
desire for sex is lustful and is therefore evil, so a truly virtuous person
holds zero desire for money and zero desire for sex, so they are led down the
wrong path by their misunderstanding of their own Bible. In reality, for ethics
and virtue and morality, you can do the wrong thing, but you can also have too
much of a good thing, which itself becomes another wrong thing, and, because a
good person desires goodness, doing too much of the right thing might be an
even greater temptation than doing the wrong thing.
Take, for example, this
question: if eating lots of cake and junk food tastes good, then how can it be
true that perception is truthful, which is the position held by the philosophy
of Objectivism, because the cake tastes good, but eating it is bad for you? But
I hold that the cake tasting good is truthful, because the cake is good, it is
only bad to eat it because eating it is too much of a good thing, for example,
too much fat and too much sugar, so the fact that fat and sugar taste good is
not evidence that the senses are deceptive or that perception lacks accurate
knowledge of objective reality, fat and sugar taste like exactly what they
really are in reality.
Similarly, for sex, it
looks hot and beautiful because it is hot and beautiful, but the naked human
body is also gross and disgusting and dirty, as an animal body, so sex looks
exactly like what it really is. One should want some food, but not too much and
be fat, or too little and starve; one should desire some sex, but not too much
and be dirty and disgusting, or too little and be mired in sexual frustration
and a lack of pleasure in life.
There are
countervailing arguments against me: for example, that greed is the love of
money in itself, which is an unhealthy attitude towards money, whereas a
healthy attitude towards money is to use money as a means to an end but never
as an end in itself, and so on for sex, food, etc., so it is a question of
attitude, not a question of degrees. There is also the argument that I get
Christianity wrong (and, I admit, most theologians would not agree with my
analysis), that food, money, sex, self-esteem, etc., are the tools by means of
which a person stays alive in the physical world, and any behavior that clings
to life in the physical world is wrong, and true virtue lies in renouncing the
physical world, which purifies the soul for its journey to Heaven upon death.
That is one extreme Christian view, although, if that is the official Christian
position, then, obviously, my theory is not Christian, it is merely a synthesis
of certain elements of the Bible with certain elements of Aristotle.
One may, of course, point to sex, food, money, and self-opinion, as things that tempt one into betraying one's moral integrity, such as, for example, if money is a temptation to commit a crime, or if sex tempts you to betray a friend for a woman (or for a man), or if pride leads you to an act of arrogance or grandiosity or to steal credit for someone else's achievement. Envy, or wrath, could also be an emotional influence that tempts you to evil. To betray law-abiding society (by crime, for money), to betray someone else (for sex), or to do the worst thing you could do, to betray yourself, is the ultimate evil. Betrayal, symbolized by Judas in the story of Jesus Christ, is the one true evil, but, expressed on our lives, it is our own betrayal of our ethics and our moral integrity. So defined, one could say that the seven deadly sins are merely a list of temptations to betrayal, to evil. If so, then, used in a good or ethical way, food and sex and pride etc. would not be sins, they would only be sins when expressed as the temptation to bait you into betraying your own soul.
