Can one be "too moral?" (See Details)?

Question

Henry David Thoreau said, "Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much life. Aim above morality. Be not simply good; be good for something. "

Are you too moral? Are you cheating yourself out of life?

Answer 1

I took a media ethics class in college ten million years ago and we debated for what seemed like the entire semester over this topic. I remember it still because it has such an impact on my day-to-day life.

What I've come to believe is this: morality for the sake of morality is immoral. To be fixated on becoming moral redirects the focus of what could be a virtue into an agenda. Morality as a goal is suspect at best, because its motivations are no longer altruistic.

If one is truly moral, then morality is a part of the fabric of that person's life. His or her pursuits might be anything at all -- painting, driving a school bus, growing organic produce with low-flow irrigation, designing an efficient light-rail system -- pursuits driven by passion for what one does. Morality doesn't have to drive these passions, but it can be a method, innate or practiced, by which one is guided as a passion is pursued.

Answer 2

As I have matured and gotten older, I did come to realize that very thing stated in your question.
I believe everyone has morals. Some more than others. Some none at all. Are the ones with no morals happier than those that have them? Somehow I doubt that. Having no morals would be similar to having no conscience.
My views have changed over the years as by being too rigid about some things have stopped me from living my life and doing some of the fun things my morals would have stopped me at one time.
Being less judgemental and letting things be as they are has certainly helped.
But we cannot change too much of who we are and what we believe. We can take baby steps and letting go of some of the rigidity that besets many of us.

I have always been very serious and idealistic by nature. I have come to realize that this is not a good thing as my views simply don't matter in the overal picture.

Answer 3

No, I do not feel that I am cheating myself out of life. I have morals that I can live with; such as I don't steal, I try not to lie, but be tactful if I have to tell the truth, I don't say one thing and do something else, I keep promises, I respect all people, no matter what ethnicity they are. If I see someone in need, I try to help. So, I consider myself to have high morals, however, I also give more of myself than I get from others.

Answer 4

No, not personally, but the concept is fabulous - I've been thinking along those lines myself lately for a story I'm writing. you remember "It's A Wonderful Life"? George Bailey, feeling he has been, to borrow from Thoreau, "just good, not good for something", is shown all the things that would and would not have happened had he not been born - the amazing difference he has made to many single lives. But what kind of impact does that have on a person - if you see all this and go and live your "wonderful" life, what then do you strive for? Must one be content with living a small but wonderful life and making a small but wonderful difference? Or should one, as Thoreau says, not just be good, but strive to be good for something, on a larger scale? And if one strives for this, does one risk the losing of the life one has?

Answer 5

Good question, morals are the ethics to help us keep our own selfishness from overly hurting anyone else. Emotions are immoral creatures and sometimes are checked by moral codes. Then again are our morals not our template for how the world should be? Without morals I don't think idealism could exist; they are the framework on which we can hang our emotional internal world without them becoming rampant or destructive.

A dominance of moral thought, like a dominance of any state of mind, would be bad for a person

Answer 6

It depends. At the end of the day, looking at the mirror, you should be able to face yourself.
There are far too many examples of doing anything and everything under the sun, justifying the deeds and getting away with it. I guess that's what sets the "moral" camp people in thinking they are getting cheated out of life. We all "know" very well when we start compromising, and most of the times we "cheat" our inner-self and get the thing done.

So I guess the question boils down to : Which is worse: Cheating your inner-self, or becoming desperate to get everything in this one life to avoid saying "I cheated myself out of much life"!

Answer 7

You have been reading Walden's Pond again. I think Thoreau's greatest contribution was his concept of Civil Disobedience. From Gandhi to Rosa Parks this has been a philosophy that has changed the way we right wrongs and deal with injustices. Those in power considered this to be immoral. It is a form of situation ethics. On one hand, one is breaking the law, on the other one is obeying a higher law: that injustice needs to be dealt with all means at one's disposal, without violence." Prudence is an old maid courted by incapacity". That is my view on morality for morality's sake

Answer 8

I think what Thoreau was really doing was redefining morality – much the same way Nietzsche did when he said "The noble soul has reverence for itself." Morality need not be moralistic. It can be more than a set of rules and precepts; it can be an animating ideal.

Answer 9

Interesting point.
For example, the late Mother Theresa. She gave up her life to serve God by being a missionary in India's impoverished rural areas. Are you suggesting she was cheated of her own life? That she was penalized for being "too good?!."
As there are many temptations in this world, morals serve as a barometer to filter out what's proper or not, etc. It's up to your better judgment on which path to choose.
Life is what you make of it, be it a bed of roses or a bed of thorns. That's what life is all about - making the right choices.

Answer 10

I don't think he meant that being moral cheats you of life. What he's discussing is the tendancy to be all talk and no action. Many will spout off overly moral convictions, but with no action, they are meaningless, and a waste of life. To live and fight for your morals is the concept he was wishing we'd accept. Unfortunately, still today we live and fight for another's morals, often adopting them for our own.
I don't think any of us are too moral, I just wish we would not be so complacent to stand by and watch as the morals of others are trampled on. That is wasting life. I'm guilty of that. It is difficult to be a voice for the oppressed, when you live among the oppressors.