Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
The Project for Moral Perfection
WILFRED MCCLAY: Weíre here today to talk about Benjamin Franklin. Now we all know Benjamin
Franklin as one of the Founding Fathers, as a great scientist, inventor, diplomat. A man
of many talents, many achievements. Today weíre here to talk about him as an author.
And specifically as the author of ìThe Project for Moral Perfection.î Leon, could you tell
us just what this project is?
LEON KASS: Well this is a project which Franklin describes in his Autobiography. And the part
in which heís in his 79th year, he looks back upon the young Franklin age 22, who conceives
this bold and arduous project of attaining moral perfection. He wanted to live without
faults, he wanted to conquer what natural inclination or custom or bad company might
lead him intoÖoff the straight and narrow. And he discovered that it was a lot harder
to do this than he thought. So he set about to do this rather methodically. He put together
a list of 13 virtues, gave to each of these virtues a short little precept that would
describe the full extent of what that virtue entailed. The virtues are temperance, silence,
order, resolution, frugality, industry, sincerity, justice, moderation, cleanliness, tranquility,
chastity, and humility. Umm and he uhh set about trying to acquire these habitsóthe
habits of each of these virtuesóin an orderly way. First trying to master the first, then
the second, and so-on. And since there were 13 virtues, he could do one week each on each
of the virtues and have four courses of self-perfection in a year. And heíd continue this for many
years until he got a little too busy and it became inconvenient. But as heís reflects
on this at the end of his life, or toward the end of his life, even though he doesnít
attain, attain the moral perfection, in fact fails in many respects, he still credits this
project with the happinessÖthat he became a much happier and better human being than
he would otherwise have been. And he recommends this project to his descendants, that they
should emulate him and reap the benefits.
WILFRED MCCLAY: Amy, you have anything to add to that?
AMY KASS: A couple of things. First of all, itís a project. The project. Like all projects,
a project is something you throw out in front of you. Whatís thrown out before him is a
problem that he wants to overcome. The problem is his own moral turpitude or his waywardness.
Secondly, and more importantly I think, this is a bold and arduous project. That has to
be emphasized. To say itís arduous would suggest that it really is toilsome. Later
on in the description he uses the image of the garden and weeding. Itís like weeding
a garden. Which suggests that itís not something that is being done for its own sake, but itís
being done for something else. But even more interesting, itís bold. Why is it bold? Itís
bold, the very title ìThe Project for Moral Perfectionî has a Christian resonance to
it. And I suspect it isÖhe is identifying and clearly separating himself from the Christian
tradition. ìBe perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfectîóMathew. He isÖ has that
in mindÖ but the assumption is utterly different. Human beings are not by nature sinful creatures
or willfully evil creatures. But human beings are justÖ wayward because they have bad habits.
DIANA SCHAUB: Although in a certain sense, for a Christian this project might be a little
bit easier, because one would have the assistance of divine grace, uhh one could Ö.accomplish
this through prayer. I mean, one reason why this is so arduous is because it does rely
entirely on Franklinís own efforts.
LEON KASS: Right, this is, this is a project of self-command, umm by oneís own self-exertions.
this little, uhh table for daily examination in which he gives himself bad, black marks
for when he, when he slips on each of the virtues. He doesnít rely on anything beyond
himself and his own self-criticism.
AMY KASS: Heís going to develop and control himself. And I like the point that you made
Diana, but he nowhere seems to think that divine grace is going to be of assistance
to him.
DIANA SCHAUB: He does leave himself without certain resources that are available to those
who believe in the Christian revelation. But in another sense, it is also easier for him
because what he finds is not sin, but ìerrata.î And as a printer himself, he knows that ìerrataî
can be corrected. So at one point, he doesnít keep track of the marks with pen and paper,
but he actually switches to some sort of tablet which can be erased with a wet sponge. So
whenever he wants, he can just wipe away the memory of those faults.
WILFRED MCCLAY: Is there any significance to the fact that heís telling us this not
as a 22-year old, not as a 40-year old, but as a nearly 80-year old, reflecting back on
his life?
LEON KASS: Your question invites some thought about what Franklin is up to in telling us
his story altogether. And although we canít go into it here, the entire Autobiography
leaves out all of the wonderful things that Franklin has done and for which he is famous.
So we begin to think that maybe heís not just telling the story of his life as a record
of his life as lived, but rather the presentation of his life altered in such a way that it
could become a model for his descendents. Itís addressed to ìDear sonî, and itís
in a way, all of us are in some ways, Franklinís children.
AMY KASS: Heís also very mindful of the fact that his name, Franklin, in middle English,
ìFrankî means ìfree.î He is playing with the name. And he would like all Americans
to be free men, free Franklins. And these are the things that are necessary to make
you free men, to have self-command. So heís talking about freedom from crushing poverty,
freedom from the dominion of vice and debt, freedom from stultifying customs, freedom
from living at the behest of others, and freedom to go and to do and to think and to be whatever
you want to be, privately as well as publicly.
WILFRED MCCLAY: Very interesting, let me pick up on this a little bit and talk about the
particular virtues he chooses to emphasize. Are these virtues that are appropriate to
uhh a particular way of life? The American way of life. Is there something American about
these virtues?
DIANA SCHAUB: Well, they do seem more commercial in character, the prominence that is given
to frugality and industry so that it might point in that direction. I mean, Franklin
is often associated with the bourgeois virtues. Those who disagree with Franklin and insult
Franklin say, you know, heís the father of all theÖ theÖKiwanians.
LEON KASS: Well I donít think we should let the critics have the first word. I think we
should try to describe and look at these virtues umm and see what you get from them. And I
think Amyís provided the uhh, I think the key idea in the virtues becoming a free, responsible
individual who can umm provide for himself, can get along with other people, can contribute
both to his private and familial happiness, as well as to the public good. He hasÖ Through
temperance, he acquires that kind of coolness and clearness of mind thatís required for
doing just about anything you want to do in life. Silence, as he says, enables him to
learn from other people. And then orderÖ Anything that you want to do is certainly
helped along by a certain orderliness in your habits and in your ways of life. Resolution.
Resolve to do what you ought, and then you perform what you resolve. There are lots of
people that have good intentions, but if they lack resolution they canít do anything. And
then you get into theÖthen you get into the virtues that have to do with wealth and industry.
Frugality, so that you donít waste what you have, and industry so you can provide for
yourself and you can be responsible. And then sincerity and justice. If youíve got economic
independence, you donít have to sort of look around enviously at what other people have.
Itís a lot easier to have innocent thoughts and speak accordingly, and in fact to do your
duty by your neighbor and so on and the like. And finally, and I would emphasize also moderation.
Avoid extremes. And very importantly: donít resent those injuries done to you as much
as you think they deserve to be resented. Thatís a guide against wounded pride and
anger, the presence of which destroys communal relations. This is an admirable, responsible
citizen whoís not on the public dole, who gets along with other people, is a good family
man, a good provider, a good member of civic organizations, a goodÖall around, good citizen.
And yeah, there might be some things missing, but if more people were like Franklin, the
world would be a much better place.
AMY KASS: I, I think especially today. I mean, if you take your bearings, especiallyÖweíre
in Washington, if you take your bearings from Washington, uhh the, the moderation, as he
understands it, ìavoid extremes, forbear resenting injuries as much as you think they
deserveî and tranquility uhh ìbe not disturbed at trifles.î Uhh, wouldnít that be useful
for public life? Wouldnít it be useful to have people who had so much self-command that
they didnítÖ that they were forbearing, that they were forgiving, they were able to
hold themselves in check.
WILFRED MCCLAY: You know, a lot of what youíre saying I think most people would agree with
in the abstract. But I wonder if theyíve thought about the degree to which other assumptions
that come out of popular culture and our way of life actually militate against Franklinesque
virtues. Can you think of any examples of that? Of ways in which things that seem in
Franklinís text to be home truths are actually counter-cultural in the contemporary environmentÖ?
AMY KASS: Youíre thinking about venery?
WILFRED MCCLAY: Well, rarelyÖ.
AMY KASS: But look, the wonderful thing is the humor that isÖgoes straight through this
entire description.
WILFRED MCCLAY: Now why the humor, though, Amy? Because if, if, if heís presenting us,
in a straight forward way, with a set of virtues that everyone ought to emulate, why does he
do it in the way that he does? Why so tongue-in-cheek? Why so full of irony?
AMY KASS: Let me make a couple of very brief suggestions.
WILFRED MCCLAY: Okay.
AMY KASS: One is, I think he really thinks that to be in command of yourself is perfectly
compatible with accepting yourself. Secondly, I think he thinks that umm whatís in your
interest could also be in the public interest. And third, I think thatÖ what is good for
you is also good for other people.
DIANA SCHAUB: There is a sense in which yes these are virtues for everyone, heís offering
himself as a model for emulation. But he also presents the ordering of the virtues as somehow
attuned to his own soul and to his own deficiencies and his own desires. SoÖ uhh, he beings as
you say, with temperance. The reason for that is not that thereís something in and of itself
good about temperance, but because a certain moral virtue actually leads to an intellectual
virtue. It gives him a clear head, right. He indicates then that uhh the reason he puts
silence next was because uhh he is interested not just in the acquisition of virtue, but
heís interested in studies. He has his own studies that he wants to go forward with.
And he realizes that heís getting into a bad habit of prattling on and joking and punning
and engaging in this sort of frivolous conversation. And so it was particularly important for Franklin
himself that that second virtue be silence. What we find out eventuallyÖ He doesnít
acquire the virtue the silence, he acquires the virtue of cheerful conversation.
The virtues he acquires are actually an unstated list of virtues like tolerance, or accommodation
to others. So for instance, with order, he says ìIt proved very, very difficult for
me to bring order to my life. Iím not a very orderly person.î But then he also makes the
point the reason he could never stick to that order he had listed for the day was because
other people have their own plans for the day and orders. So he sometimes had to depart
from his order in order to conduct his business with them in a way that wasÖthat accommodated
them. So that, so that in fact it seems to me thereís a kind of second set of virtues
here embedded in the first that really are a result of the failure of, some at least,
in the stated set of virtues.
LEON KASS: Donít forget, heís reporting the youthful project that he had. And there
areÖ these were the list of virtues that occurred to him to list at that time.
AMY KASS: Heís being very playful as heís doing it. I would not say heís giving you
as second list of virtues, there are hidden things heís trying to say. He says quite
explicitly in each of these explanatory self-injunctions that he gives, or these little precepts. Sincerity:
Use no hurtful deceit.
DIANA SCHAUB: Which, which means, in other words, the virtue means ìuse deceit well.î
Maybe as Franklin himself does, as a diplomatist, and an as an author who writes under various
masks and disguises.
AMY KASS: Exactly. Actually, he says the virtue he has the most difficulty with is order.
Thatís the one thatís most difficult for him. And then he lets himself off the hookña
speckled axe is bestóso thatís what I meant when I said he is self-accepting at the same
time as heís trying to achieve a certain kind of self-command. And he says, of himself,
that even though he never acquired all of theseÖ He never says that he acquired it,
or that anybody could ever be perfect, achieve moral perfection. But he was better for having
tried.
DIANA SCHAUB: Yes, but better why? Because he learned something about the needfulness
of, for instance, with this last one, about humility: imitate Jesus and Socrates, what
he learned is you need to cultivate a reputation for that, and the appearance of that.
LEON KASS: FranklinÖ on the one hand, in the Autobiography, presents himself dissembling
his superiority as a kind of everyman. You too can be a Franklin, in Amyís interesting
sense of being a free man. Heís not trying to produce other people who literally are
capable of living the kind of extraordinary life that he lived. But the irony and some
of these light touches, I think could be explained differently. This is not the ethic of the
beautiful fellow who makes virtue look simple, of some nobility who levitates himself above
the ground and isÖmakes a beautiful spectacle of himself. Nor is itÖ easy licentious self-indulgence
of the hedonistic variety, and itís not priggish self-denial. What youíve got is a kind of
moral teaching that says the virtues are useful, donít be too *** yourself if you donít
reach perfection. And he gives you all kinds of clues about why even the maxims have exceptions
or qualifications, or things of that sort, for the most part. So itís a kind of middling
ónot easy, by the wayóI mean, letís be clear, to have self-command, being a human
being is not easy. But itís a kind of self-command that is compatible with self-satisfaction,
and with the realization of your goals, and having true self-esteem. Itís not a matter
of self-flagellation or self-denial. So that I think that explains, in part, the light
touch here. That umm, you know, be serious about your character. But donít be too serious.
And having a sense of humor about yourself is one of the ways of getting on in this world
with other people. And it makes civil life possible, it enables you, in fact, to have
your influence felt.
AMY KASS: It also enables you to separate yourself from yourself, to laugh, even at
yourself. And heís doing that, a lot of the time. He is dissembling. He is a great man.
WILFRED MCCLAY: The American model for the great man is the uncommon, common man. You
know, Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the greatest of all, Harry Truman, in way. And Franklin,
it seems to me, is kind of an early exponent of this view. And I think heís partly, with
that discussion of order, trying to charm us. Heís like that person that says, ìWell,
you really shouldnít drink. But I occasionally have a nip myself.î It both affirms the precept,
but affirms the falling away from time to time, just as Leon says.
AMY KASS: He wants to charm us. He wants to draw us in, the way stories often draw us
in. But he also wants finally to enable us to see with him. To look at the world the
way in which heís looking at the world, which is not to take your bearings from the greatest
excellence there is, but to take your bearings from some things that you can accomplish,
that you can do.
WILFRED MCCLAY: You know, I wonder if this quality weíre talking about is, is, is American,
is distinctively, or at least appears in the American soul in a fairly concentrated wayÖ
Is there a way that Franklin is kind of pointing towards the value of a sense of humor in a
democratic, commercial society?
DIANA SCHAUB: Itís a necessary protection for the superior man. Itís the deference
that he pays to the principle of equality.
WILFRED MCCLAY: Which is that uhh well ìI have foibles too, just like you.î And uhh
this allows the common person to sort of accept that they may be great, but theyíre okay.
Theyíre one of us.
AMY KASS: You know, itís a platitude today to talk about self-esteem. Everybody wants
self-esteem, our schools are promoting self-esteem. Well, Franklin may be the originator of that
platitude. You want to be able to accomplish something that makes you feel that you are
somebody.
LEON KASS: But with this important difference: The feeling of self-esteem in the absence
of that which should be estimable is hollow. And Franklinís not talking in the first instance
about self-esteem. Heís talking in the first instance about self-command, which he can
then esteem and be esteemed by others. But I want to go back, I mean, I thought umm,
you asked what kind of human being is produced here and whether there is a particular American
type, and not just amongst out leaders. Diana mentioned that courage is missing from this
list, uhh thatís quite striking. It suggests that these are the virtues ofÖAmerican citizens
in peacetime, let us say. But would you find fault, with this sort of picture of the good
man and the good citizen for the United States of America? Is there something missing here?
DIANA SCHAUB: What I want to ask about is public spiritedness. Is there anything here
that, I mean, we know Franklin himself is a man of very great public spirit. What in
this list of virtues leads Americans to pull out of their narrow understanding of virtue
as just something private and commercial? What leads them to engage in public spiritedness?
AMY KASS: I think it goes against our grain today to even think of making a list and following
it the way he does. But it seems to me to be the case that if your own house is in order,
which is his first priority, then youíre capable, if youíre interested, in doing things
for others. Uhh, just humanly speaking, quite apart from Franklin, if you are so preoccupied,
so weighed down by your own debts and your own vices, and your own inclinations and desires,
you never notice the other people that are around you. And Franklin gives you a very
handy recipe for getting your house in order.
DIANA SCHAUB: But, but do we see that today? So for instance with frugality. The principle
really is donít waste anything. But he says yes to spending. Youíre allowed to spend.
He says, you know, we want to spend to do good to others and to ourselves. But donít
we see today that people spend mostly just to do good for themselves.
AMY KASS: It is certainly true that Americans are notoriously materialistic. But it is also
true that weíre the most philanthropic people in the world. Now, both of them seem to go
hand in hand.
LEON KASS: And philanthropy is not possible without the wherewithal, and uh thatísÖ
I mean, I think Amyís point could be embellished this way: Human beings are, in a way, naturally
sociable. The question is, in what manner are you going to be sociable? Are you going
to be sociable in a way which youíre looking upon other people as instruments of your own
gain and advancement? Or are you going to be free from the kinds of necessities that
make you think only in selfish terms. So that you understand that itís in your own interest
also to be sociable, philanthropic, generous, benevolent. Umm, I think these are the virtues
that are controlling the obstacles to being a free man in a free, self-governing community.
And once people go out there freed of those things that weigh them down, the other things
will take care of themselves. I mean you will engage with other people in mutual projects,
without simply thinking of yourself. And at the same time you will also be self-fulfilled.
Itís a kind of a remarkable combination.
AMY KASS: Wouldnít you want Franklin as a neighbor? If you have potholes in your street,
Franklin is the sort of man who looks out into the world and says what can I do? Well
thereís a pothole. Letís fill it. Thatís a very useful neighbor to have.
LEON KASS: And the daily schedule that he makes for himself begins in the morning with
the question, ìwhat good shall I do this day?î, and the evening question is ìwhat
good have I done this day?î Umm, thatÖ it looks hokey, none of us are going to make
lists like that. But the spirit, the spirit is the world is there waiting for my effort
and uhhÖ I can make the world a better place.
WILFRED MCCLAY: Virtue is clearly not its own reward in Franklinís scheme. I mean when
you come to the end of our selection, he points to the felicity of his first 79 years as the,
as the justification for the project and for the pursuit of virtue. So itísÖ thatís
part of the appeal of, you know, self-interest rightly understood, that approach to virtue.
But there may be virtues like sacrifice, like extreme forms of courageÖ you know the soldier
who falls on the grenade to save his buddies in the platoonÖthat simply canít be accounted
for that way. Is anything lost by Franklinís way of tallying things up?
AMY KASS: I think yes and no. And if we remember, he has two virtues for moderation. One is
temperance, one is moderation. And that really isnít an accident. What he, I think, was
most afraid of, was fanaticism. Fanaticism of any form. And that might be a reason that
courage is not included in this. We know from his life and from other things that he says
in the autobiography, that he goes off to Philadelphia, by himself, at the age of 17
without basically anything and a makes life for himself. Thatís an act of great courage.
Thatís not even taking into account that he led a militia, that he organized militias,
that he fought and so on. So that he knows about that, but what heís worried about has
to do with this kind of extremism. And how do people get along together, just in ordinary
life? ÖThere is something else I would say that is clearly missing hereÖ and that is
what most of us, the bread and butter for most of usÖ There seems to be no longing
in this man.
DIANA SCHAUB: I donít completely agree. I mean, he does say what his desire is for.
ìMy desire being to gain knowledge at the same time that I improved in virtue.î So
virtue is instrumental, but he does seem to have this desire for knowledge.
LEON KASS: Maybe not even knowledge for its own sake. It was knowledge that was sort of
useful, thatís going to be useful knowledge in a technological sense. Now I would say
that you could say that the picture of the human being that Franklin presents as a kind
of model will look to a young person today as flat-souled, a little too safe, a little
too calculating, a little too rational. No great passions, no great loves. Thereís nothing
of the artistic, as well as the ***, on the surface of this. And umm, I think thatís
fair. I think that criticism is somewhat fair. But umm the great geniuses of the arts will
show up, whether Franklin wants them to go that way or not. And the more important question
is, for America as a self-governing country in which you want citizens who donít just
enjoy the privileges of living here but exercise some responsibilities in their schools, in
their local civic associations. These are the people you want. Hawthorne and Melville
will find a way to write what they have to write. A lot of other people who are being
encouraged to be writers would be better off learning Franklinís virtues and going to
the PTA.
AMY KASS: The most serious objection to him, or the most famous objection to Franklin was
I guess uttered by D.H. Lawrence who thought that Franklin suppressed the dark, the darkness
of his soul, and the dark recesses of his soul, there was no access to it. It was flat
and ugly and pale-colored and so on. I think itís precisely because Franklin understands
the dark recesses of the human soul that he takes the light touch that he does.
WILFRED MCCLAY: Is the ìrarely use veneryî meant to be tongue-in-cheek do you think?
That language?
AMY KASS: Well I think his tongue is very deeply in his cheek. And he says ìrarelyî
use it, but for so and so. Itís uhh, He doesnít say ìdonít.î Itís not a ìthou shall notî
a ìthou shaltî, itís Öqualified.
WILFRED MCCLAY: And it is ìuseîÖthe very grammatical construction, suggests the logic
of self-control, that this is not something you allow to use you- you use it. So you are
in change.
AMY KASS: Right. Thatís because he knows from his own experience how reason can point
you in two different directions. ReasonÖ Itís very important to have reason and control.
But reason could also be used as rationalization for your inclinations. And heÖ There are
many many anecdotes in the autobiography where he makes that perfectly clear to us.
WILFRED MCCLAY: Are there any things that if Franklin were uhh, were able to come back
and make some addenda, correct the errata, whatever, that he or we should consider adding?
LEON KASS: I think umm Diana raised the question before: How do you promote public spiritedness?
Is Franklinís list of self-command sufficient? What about neighborliness? Or certain kinds
of injunctions toward charity or compassion? Franklin might have in his own time might
have suggested these things if he was not in the project of self-perfection but was
thinking about what civic virtues that we need explicitly. But I certainly think that
beyond self-command and self-regard and self-respect we do need, we do need some of these other
things. And they are, in some respects, they are in some respects in rather short supply.
WILFRED MCCLAY: You know, a lot of people might wonder because Franklin was the prototypical
white male, although hardly privileged, in his time that the virtues he extols are peculiar
to his uhh his class, or particularly to his gender. Do you have any thoughts about that,
about whether these are in any way gender specific, male-specific?
AMY KASS: Well I think they are not gender specific. I think in fact these are the kinds
of virtues that enable theÖwhat Henry James will later call ìthe self-made girlî to
self-make herself. She is, in fact, employing many of the virtues that Franklin extols.
She is a person who separates herself from her family orÖ One of the quintessential
elements of the self-made girl is that she makes herself, she doesnít depend upon her
parents. She has a certain kind of quiet. Sheís quick, handsome, and competent, simple
and self-possessed. And I think thatís perfectly compatible with what Franklin is talking about.
WILFRED MCCLAY: Would you perhaps say even that these are virtues that may come more
easily to women than to men? What Iím thinking of is how many writers of the 18th century
talked about commerce as having a softening effect on morals because it facilitated intercourse
in the sense of dealings between people in trade and conversation and sociability. That,
uhhÖ getting back to courage, one more timeÖ none of these are what might be called ìmanlyî
virtues. And again, not to imply for a second that women donít exhibit courage and are
not required to. But martial virtues we tend to associate with men. And none of these are
martial or manly virtues. Any thoughts about that, about whetherÖin some ways they are
actually more feminine than masculine? ÖTo stretch it a little bit.
DIANA SCHAUB: I guess in general I agree that they are gender neutral or a kind of androgynous,
but you could make an argument that it cuts in a more feminine direction. So theÖwhat
he says about moderation, that seems, there he seems to be working against those who are
in the grips of manly pride or manly honor and they take offense readily and theyíre
quick to anger. And so he really wants to get that under control in this, in this new
order. Moderation is a virtue which is maybe more associated with women than with men,
and he gives a special pride of place with this virtue of moderation. Or even when he
says about sincerity, especially since he gives it this little twist and says that itís
really about using deceit well. There have been many political philosophers who argue
that women in particular excel at that, as the ìweakerî party they have to resort to
deceit, or diplomacy, or tactfulness. And so Franklin as a diplomatist himself understands
those feminine ìwiles.î
WILFRED MCCLAY: And those things may even, in going on into the 19th century, passed
his lifetime, this may be even more true that temperance, for example, as a movement, is
associated with women.
DIANA SCHAUB: Yeah although presumably he would be opposed that because there it becomes
rather fanaticalÖ
WILFRED MCCLAY: Indeed, indeed.
DIANA SCHAUB: So heís, you know, the temperance is not for its own sake, and it doesnít mean
abstinence, it means you donít, donít drink to elevation. And the reason is to keep a
cool head so that you can carry forth your other projects.
WILFRED MCCLAY: I wonder if he would have felt the same way about abolition, the abolition
movement to abolish slavery because that certainly was fanatical in someÖWilliam Lloyd GarrisonÖ
heís the very picture of fanaticism.
LEON KASS: He has humility as a virtue, and Jesus comes in as a model along with Socrates,
of humility. I donít frankly understand in what sense that imitation is intended, and
how the two of them are simultaneously and equally models. But never mind. But umm religion
doesnít really enter in here. Reverence is not a virtue. itís true that Franklin is
trying to shift away from fanatical religious teachings, which divide people and produce
civil disorder and worseÖOn the other hand, he hasÖhe writes his own prayer to address
powerful goodness, he has some kind of deistic view here. But uhhÖ Iím wondering whether
he hasnít left out something terribly important both for private and public life.
DIANA SCHAUB: No, but there the re-definition of chastity is very important. I mean, this
is not a biblical understand of chastity. Itís not abstinence before marriage and fidelity
within marriage. Itís, you know, engage in *** activity for health and/or offspring,
and he even suggests there may be certain times in which you could, you know, be a bit
of a philanderer so long as it didnít endanger anybodyís reputation, or your own reputation.
So heís playing pretty fast and loose with some of those traditional virtues, and virtues
that would have been very tied to women.
LEON KASS: Your comment leads me to wonder whether or not the success of Franklinís
project, to the extent to which Americans have become Franklins in this particular sense,
very successful in our commercial republic, very self-reliant in many respects, whether
that hasnítÖ uhhÖ undermined, to some extent, some of the moral teachings which the country
also needs and the absence of which we now feel. In other words, maybe the problem today
is not religious fanaticism, butÖ uhhÖ self-indulgence and insufficient fear of heaven.
DIANA SCHAUB: We need a bit more of this Puritan residuum.
AMY KASS: I think one of the questions isÖ about religion has to do with the way in which
he talks about moderation. Forbearance becomes very important. And uhh you could say, well,
thatís feminizing moderation and thatís instead of courage. But it certainly is compatible
with a kind of religious attitude. Secondly, umm if Öturn the other cheek. Ok. So there
are things that are in this, the assumptions are radically different from the Christian
assumptions. Men areÖHuman beings are not sinners by nature. But I donít think he would
suggest that hope or faith or charity are virtues that one ought not to cultivate.
LEON KASS: Fair enough.
WILFRED MCCLAY: This motif of a chart detailing oneís sins..is a ...becomes a sort of a staple
in American literature.
DIANA SCHAUB: It is interesting that Franklin continues to carry this with him. He says
that he leaves off keeping the, the moral calorie count, but he continues to carry,
yeah, this little book along with him. But it seems to me there that the little book
replaces the book of books, I mean replaces the Bible.
LEON KASS: Thatís very nice.
DIANA SCHAUB: I mean, also, on the religious question, I would point to what he does with
cleanliness: The argument is not that cleanliness is next to Godliness or that thereís some
kind of purity of soul which is required. When he talks about cleanliness itís entirely
in terms of the body and thereís no hint at all that this cleanliness could have any
sort of spiritual component or purity.
AMY KASS: Good.
DIANA SCHAUB: So Iím not so sure that he would include the theological virtues as virtues.
AMY KASS: You think he would deny them?
DIANA SCHAUB: Umm, well I think he ignores them. And that he maybe would prefer them
to go away.
AMY KASS: He doesnít ignore charity.
DIANA SCHAUB: He doesnít ignore good worksÖbut in other words, this is a reconfiguration
of religion to be just concerned with the good you can do your fellow man. And if religion
can contribute to that, then space can be made for it. But otherwiseÖ
AMY KASS: I think youíre right.
LEON KASS: And he talks about the great benefit of this is the constant felicity of his life,
in this life, in this life. This is a very this-worldly centeredÖ
DIANA SCHAUB: And he would live his life over again.
AMY KASS: Oh yes, if given the chance. Theyíre only erratas, and theyíre only five.
DIANA SCHAUB: Return of the same is okay with, withÖ
AMY KASS: LikeÖprinterís errors, you could rub them out like printerís errors. And hope
too, I guess youíre absolutely right. Itís not that he looks to something divine for
hope. He looks to this world. Do something. Thatís whatís hopeful. Thatís what will
give you hope.
WILFRED MCCLAY: Thank you very much and I want to remind viewers that all of these readings
are available and further information, and videos of these discussions are available
on the website, www.whatsoproudlywehail.org.