Aug 17, 2023·edited Aug 17, 2023Liked by M. E. Rothwell
This is a beautiful piece of writing. It gets to the heart of one of my own conundrums as an atheist who yearns for religion: as you point out, religion is a unifying and positive force for the world in some significant ways. But it is *also* a curse, and has brought about enormous guilt and suffering. It unites people around a meaning-making mythos, but it also pits irreconcilable doctrines against each other in violent ways.
I personally yearn for the meaning and structure of organized religion but am repulsed by the dogma, and I have an intellectual temperament that doesn't allow me to believe in the supernatural claims.
If only religion and our relationship to it were simple. The greatest books reveal the complexity of human nature, and you've demonstrated how Les Miserables does exactly that.
Thank you Stephen! I very much relate to your intellectual temperament! I always laugh that I'm an existentialist in that I think there is no meaning of life but for whatever reason that doesn't give me "existential angst" or "existential dread." I don't need life to have meaning to enjoy it or find it beautiful. Just the art of noticing how beautiful it all is feels like enough meaning for me. But I am also very much a humanist and think we shouldn't just sit back and enjoy, we should still work to make life better for others. Maybe that's a purpose in and of itself!
Thanks so much for responding! I think this gets to two fundamentally different types of people: those who feel free without religion, and those who feel lost without it. I think these are temperaments that aren't necessarily chosen, and it's fascinating to explore them. I wrote about this here: https://sacredtension.substack.com/p/the-bound-and-the-unbound
Have you read much Nietzsche, Stephen? He both diagnosed our loss of religion here in the West, the problems it would bring, and offered the best solution to finding new meaning (though it isn’t easy!)
It’s hard going but definitely worth the effort! The Gay Science, Ecce Homo, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra in particular. There’s also some really great YouTube channels if you cba to read 3 whole books!
Thank you Stephen, for articulating my situation so well. I also yearn for a place within organised religion, especially when I see how well it sustains people when they are going through hard times. But I cannot make myself become a believer. I do find comfort in churches and cathedrals where the faith of decades has seeped into the stones.
Religions and countries have powerful stories. My parents were Catholic, so I was raised as a Catholic. During my early years, I loved the Catholic story and adopted its teaching as a guide for me to follow, a way of living, a way to be good. Our parish priest changed that for me, it's a long story, but I watched him bully my father and everyone else in the parish to pledge money to rebuild a burned cathedral. Those who won't pledge, he shamed in public from the alter. My father worked hard. We had little money, so the multi-year pledge hurt my parents. Witnessing this resulted in my leaving the church at 16.
I tell this story because my early love of the Catholic story set a lifelong foundation of what I consider "good behavior." Stories are powerful, and depending on where you were born has everything to do with the story you hear.
What a crazy story!!! Though probably not unique, unfortunately. Religion isn't necessarily the same thing as "good," so it's good we are able to figure out what good looks like outside of that.
Why is there a struggle at all, I wonder? Where does the idea of “good” come from? What is wrong with us acting like birds or lions or any other natural thing? Why should the human standard be higher? I’m enjoyed reading this. Thanks.
Well I think we acted like birds and lions in the past (when we were small hunter gatherer tribes we were constantly warring against one another and in competition with one another—it was a predator/prey situation for sure). But at some point we had to learn how to get along and do right by each other and I think that is something we're still figuring out how to do!
I was hoping that "Les Miserables" would appear in this forum, but honestly not like this.
With all due respect to your loss of the Catholic faith (something I mourned in your "Humanism is my religion now" piece), the antagonist of this novel is Javert, not Catholicism. The police inspector is the iron-clad specter of legalistic harshness, something that Christians certainly fall into, but he is not the faith itself, because that faith is what motivates the priest who shows Valjean gracious mercy. Here, the priest represents Christian love, the love that remakes Valjean from a bitter wounded man into the man who shows mercy to the poor, to his factory workers, to Fantine, to Cosette, to Marius, and even to Javert himself. The priest does not rely "on the condition that [Valjean] commends his soul to God," because the mercy isn't conditional. He takes no steps to make sure Valjean actually reforms. He shows Valjean mercy because Valjean the convict is already commended to God and is already redeemed through Christ, should he accept it. That is the identity that motivates Valjean in his good works.
Certainly, Catholicism (along with other denominations) value external good works in the world, sometimes even to a a judgmental emptiness of heart and reliance on guilt about earning a place in heaven by those works alone. Javert represents this guilt, the iron and punitive law pursuing Valjean as he himself pursues love of others (again, because he knows himself to be loved). So guilt-and-work-focused is Javert that he cannot stand mercy even for himself and would rather die than live in a world with such a moral framework. Works-based legalistic order motivates Javert, and so his world cannot hold.
What motivates Valjean to do good? It's not the legalistic good-doing of his doomed foil and antagonist. It is love for others born of God's love for him.
Well you touch on a good point: that Javert represents the sort of bad part of Catholicism ("I follow the laws to the letter and following them make you a good or bad person") while the priest represents the good part of Catholicism ("I believe humans are all good people and so I will not condemn any of them and in fact will help them.")
I love that the first 12 chapters of Les Miserables are about that priest, and showing how he grew up and developed morals differently from other members of his faith. His was a much simpler belief and Hugo did an excellent job at illustrating what a beautiful Catholicism could look like. (Indeed that's why the religion inspired me for so many years!)
Certainly! The bishop Bienvenu (we've been mistaken on his title, it turns out) is certainly set apart from other clergy in his love for the poor and certainly, to whom he thinks the church silver truly belongs. I looked a little more into the symbolic place of the bishop and learned he troubled the French Enlightenment and its anti-clerical stances, when Hugo included him as the pivotal hinge of Valjean's transformation (I'll share the link below).
But I do want to stress the place of God in the Bishop's heart of love, because God comes to occupy a similar place in Valjean's heart of love. The bishop tells Valjean, "Jean Valjean, my brother, you no longer belong to evil, but to good. It is your soul that I buy from you; I withdraw it from black thoughts and the spirit of perdition, and I give it to God." A professor quoted in the piece below calls Bienvenu "a Bishop whose center of gravity was a compassionate God attuned to the sound of suffering, never repelled by deformities of body and soul," who is crucial to why he does good and leads Valjean to the do the same. Indeed, the song of his entrance into paradise claims, "To love another person is to see the face of God." I don't think a humanist reading of Bienvenu, that explains his love as "humans are all good people" even as he recognizes the "black thoughts and perdition" in Valjean, holds water. God is His central locus of meaning for doing good.
I understand you don't recognize God as a source of good for yourself, which to be clear isn't what I'm debating here. I'm debating God's place specific to Les Miserables because to omit mention of Him in analysis of the bishop or Valjean seems to be a misreading of goodness and good people in the novel.
"I don’t think people in need should have to wait around for people like me to be generous—that is an idle hope. Even when we aren’t selfish, we are unaware, or not paying attention, and I don’t think the of humanity should fall on our shoulders. I just want to be good, to be worthy of a good life—I want all of us to be." "I want people to be helped even if I'm not good enough to help them".
This line really got me. And it most definitely got me thinking.
I've been so busy with school work but somehow in the back of my head I told myself I'll have to come back and read this pub today. And it was worth it.
Always get me thinking...I love that.
It's weird I'm commenting when a lot of people have dropped their comments already😂
Interesting thoughts on an ever present topic. We can never have that world you dream of unfortunately. As long as human beings by nature are selfish, and we are so due to the instinct for survival it will be so.
Yes but if we know that human beings are selfish (or a better phrasing: will act in their own best interest and the interest of their families) then we can take steps to make things better for them. For example: We might buy french fries at a restaurant, but because governments have regulated the use of transfats, they aren't as bad for us as they would be if the restaurant were allowed to use them. Even if we act in our own best interests, we can be more protected.
It's a long time since I saw Les Miserables and I have not yet read the book, so I enjoyed this article and found it very thought-provoking. Regarding your statement "I’ve always wanted to be an artist and the only thing I can do is use my art for good. It feels like it’s not enough." How could you know what effect your art has on others? It could conceivably bring joy, solace and inspiration to many others down through the years, and have a far more profound effect than anything more immediately useful. We don't know the knock-on effects of our decisions, so I think being true to oneself and using the skills and talents we have is a good starting point.
That's a very good point. I suppose many of us will never know the impact our work has on others. And art has probably been one of the things that has influenced my own life the most!
Yes I agree with you Terry. There’s doing material good - helping people in need with things like housing, food, etc - and there’s another level of good, perhaps a higher level, that art can provide. Things like happiness, comfort, solace, instilling ambition, or just bringing some beauty in the world. The second good is hard to measure so we’re quicker to dismiss its effects. It’s much easier to count the number of meals one has donated than it is to count the joy that Victor Hugo’s words have brought people over the centuries, for instance.
Exactly, so well-expressed, Mikey, thank you. I only hope the Education Secretary or the PM, who has a thing about "useless degree subjects" reads these comments!
"That is something I have thought a lot about. What motivates us to do good? To live for those around us instead of ourselves? Can we do that without a moral imperative to do so? "
Yes.
"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin." Romans 3:19-20
If we define our goodness by the law, and through the law strive for righteousness, our human imperfections will trip us up and leave us condemned under the law.
But if we define our righteousness by our faith, and let our faith guide us to goodness, we will still uphold the law. Such is the power of faith.
Or, as Martin Luther wrote: "sin boldly but believe more boldly still."
But does goodness need to be defined by "the law" or by "faith?" Personally, I'd rather define it using "humanism" — the idea that all humans are good and are worthy of a good life. (And there are certainly humanist laws and humanist faiths!)
Aug 17, 2023·edited Aug 17, 2023Liked by M. E. Rothwell
The elegance of free will. You get to choose.
The annoyance of free will. You have to deal with the consequences of your choice.
Define your goodness by the law. Then you must be judged by the law.
Define your goodness by your faith. Then you must have faith, and hold on to that faith, or be lost forever in doubt.
As for humans being good, certainly all humans are God's children, and whether our deeds commend us as good or evil, forgiveness is promised to everyone.
"Let the wicked forsake their ways
and the unrighteous their thoughts.
Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them,
and to our God, for he will freely pardon." -- Isaiah 55:7
Are we all therefore worthy? Jesus certainly says we are:
"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." -- Matthew 10:29-31
And yet despite this we still see evil in the world. We see war and greed. We see sickness and death. We see hunger and famine. And time after time after time we see that these arise because of evil choices of humans. We experience misfortune even we have not (to our knowledge) done anything wrong.
What then? Do we follow the advice of Job's wife, to curse God and die? Do we follow the advice of Job's friends to plead forgiveness for some imagined sin of which we are not guilty? Do we do as Job ultimately did, and simply demand of God an explanation, an answer to the eternal question "why"?
If we do as Job did, can we accept that God does not always tell us the why?
Can we accept that, when it comes to righteousness and goodness and a "good life", it is never a matter of being "worthy"? Can we find a way to be okay with the premise that, as Clint Eastwood's character William Munny said to Gene Hackman's Little Bill in "Unforgiven": "Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it."?
It also points towards a middle way, a kind of a-line-runs-through-everything. For example, religion offers many benefits, but it can also be its own trap. Should we walk a kind of middle path? This is something I’m wrestling with. Thank you, this was great!
I so relate! I often find it sad that when I left my "belief" I left "Catholocism." Because I love everything about Catholocism, I find it such a beautiful religion in practice and ritual.
I actually tried to create a sort of middle way when I completed an art project trying to capture who the Virgin Mary was to her people in her time (rather than all of the art projects that cast her something very different during the Renaissance!). If you're interested you can find that here: https://ellegriffin.com/mary/
Aug 18, 2023·edited Aug 18, 2023Liked by M. E. Rothwell
This is the petty pace. Hop out to a bigger place for dealing with big questions. You are in a universe, you lucky stiff having a human life. You are the creation of a 13.8 billion year stunning process, where all, including us, is evolving in an expanding universe that's alive. We are here to contribute to evolution, where we will become a caring species. That bigger frame around everything offers noble purpose!
I so relate to this, Elle! I kept thinking as I read of Karen Armstrong’s brilliant book about the origins of the world’s great religions, which emerged in different corners in a relatively short time span, all in response to human suffering. (“The Great Transformation.”) It sounds reductive but what I took from her is that all religion is at base a codification of the Golden Rule. If that’s not utopian, I don’t know what is.
I often wonder why so many NGOs must exist to do the work that governments could and should be doing. Last thought: philanthropy often hides (or excuses?) enormous, obscene wealth, and in amounts the giver may hardly feel. I’d rather have a democratic process to determine societal values and priorities than entrust that support for pet causes of a few egotistical billionaires
If only the internet would behave by the "golden rule" 🥰
Also I'm with you. I think philanthropy arose to support the gaps the government wasn't reaching. So in that case, it is a societal good. But there are ways governments can be more supportive of national and global good. And ideally I do think they operate that way!
Sometimes I forget how scary smart you are, then you go a write something like this piece, a reminding sledgehammer. I've long struggled with "what is good," but mainly in terms of what is good writing. There is, no doubt, an x-y cross over between aesthetic and moral good, but defining it is always so slippery. It seems that time is the main arbiter perhaps for both. For example, that suit you love, could it be an aesthetic triumphant that somehow touches a moral nerve? Or can an abstract painting, say a splash of black paint on white canvas, have any moral value? Don't know. Neither are as compelling as a loaf of bread, an object of moral value displayed aesthetically. What is . . . good?
Als you bring out a good point about aesthetic vs. moral good. Most of the time I think moral trumps aesthetic—I think it's more important that everyone's needs are taken care than it is for me to buy frivolous things for myself. But then I am so personally moved by the aesthetic and I think that is makes life worthwhile. If we can some how reinforce the moral good at a societal level, then we will be free to enjoy life personally on the aesthetic level!
Fadcinating essay, Elle. I’ve always struggled with this “religion-imposed” goodness. I used to be very religious, but am not anymore. Still, I help out when I can. I don’t earn enough to be able to donate regularly, but I do when I have the money. I don’t think my atheism has made much of a change in that regard. But I wonder, and I always have, how much of this goodness, if it’s born out of faith, is actually genuine. I mean, of course you’re going to be nice to someone else, if the alternative is that you go to hell. That’s not selflessness; it’s the epitome of selfishness. So I don’t know, it is a head scratcher for sure. Your essay did a great job asking these questions.
There's definitely a lot to think about here. I do feel excited by the idea though that as globalization happens we are developing a more universal definition of "good." If you get someone from every possible religion in a room, there will be certain things we all agree are "good" or "bad" and that means goodness and badness are independent of faith, they are just human!
Yes, I can get behind that concept for sure! It’s a beautiful idea. Maybe we’ll one day reach the emotional and ethical maturity to strive towards an utopian society. Not saying we’ll ever reach it, just maybe we’ll be mature enough to see it as the right model.
This is wonderful. I recently read a Van Gogh biography, and one part that stuck with me was the description of Hugo's funeral procession (Van Gogh was in Paris at the time). Over two million people lines the streets of the route Hugo's casket would take. 2 million! At a time that the population of Paris was far below that. Talk about loved and respected! Speaking of utopian novels, have you read Ministry of the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson--was wondering if you considered it utopian. (I kind of do.) Anyway, thanks for sharing this.
Yes!!!! Victor Hugo was a complete legend. I understand why 2 million followed his casket. He is still one of the great thinkers, and I have never read someone who thought so deeply about life and human goodness as he did.
I've actually scheduled a call with Kim Stanley Robinson to talk about the book and his utopian vision and I'll be publishing it to my Substack in November!
That's incredible! Ministry for the Future means a lot to me. I consider it the first "policy novel" of the climate change era--the story itself kicks butt (of course), but what underlies it all is ideas and actual policy suggestions on how to solve problems. It's really incredible.
I'm so excited to read it!!!! He's one of the very few utopian writers of the modern age, so he's working off a much better data set than previous utopian thinkers (who were writing before all the incredible things we've accomplished since 1900).
I'm trying to make my utopian novel not "kick butt" (why do they all do this??) but I do love that they all spell out how we can actually solve problems (and I still want to do that too). Here's the chapter where I try to come up with a solution, Kim Stanley Robinson Style, if you're interested: https://www.elysian.press/p/oblivion-7-edited
I can't tell if I feel inspired or defeated after reading this (both?). Jean Valjean is an individual and an inspiration to do good despite it all. Defeated because, at least the way many are built today, governments are full of the same kind of moral corruption that people are. I mean, governments are made of people after all.
Yes, there are governments that are corrupt, just as there are people that are corrupt. But governments have also done more good for the world than individual humans have done (because it's a bunch of people rallying together to try to do good!). I am actually empowered that we have used governments to make tremendous good in the world! (Though I am aware they have also done bad. I guess the moral conundrum exists either way 😆)
Great post and perhaps my favorite musical of all time. I have not read the book.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the necessity for American philanthropy is created by our unnecessarily weak social safety net. It's a grievous moral flaw of how we live now.
Your concise and beautifully written post led me to subscribe. Look forward to reading you in the future.
Les Mis is my favorite musical of all time too!!!!!! I saw it first in seventh grade and it changed my life. At the time I thought I wanted to be a broadway actress, then later I read the book and knew I wanted to be a writer!
Thank you so much for subscribing! So excited to think through a better future with you!
This is a beautiful piece of writing. It gets to the heart of one of my own conundrums as an atheist who yearns for religion: as you point out, religion is a unifying and positive force for the world in some significant ways. But it is *also* a curse, and has brought about enormous guilt and suffering. It unites people around a meaning-making mythos, but it also pits irreconcilable doctrines against each other in violent ways.
I personally yearn for the meaning and structure of organized religion but am repulsed by the dogma, and I have an intellectual temperament that doesn't allow me to believe in the supernatural claims.
If only religion and our relationship to it were simple. The greatest books reveal the complexity of human nature, and you've demonstrated how Les Miserables does exactly that.
Thank you Stephen! I very much relate to your intellectual temperament! I always laugh that I'm an existentialist in that I think there is no meaning of life but for whatever reason that doesn't give me "existential angst" or "existential dread." I don't need life to have meaning to enjoy it or find it beautiful. Just the art of noticing how beautiful it all is feels like enough meaning for me. But I am also very much a humanist and think we shouldn't just sit back and enjoy, we should still work to make life better for others. Maybe that's a purpose in and of itself!
Thanks so much for responding! I think this gets to two fundamentally different types of people: those who feel free without religion, and those who feel lost without it. I think these are temperaments that aren't necessarily chosen, and it's fascinating to explore them. I wrote about this here: https://sacredtension.substack.com/p/the-bound-and-the-unbound
Oh, that's a very good point. It could very well be temperament!
Have you read much Nietzsche, Stephen? He both diagnosed our loss of religion here in the West, the problems it would bring, and offered the best solution to finding new meaning (though it isn’t easy!)
I’ve read segments, but certainly not enough!
It’s hard going but definitely worth the effort! The Gay Science, Ecce Homo, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra in particular. There’s also some really great YouTube channels if you cba to read 3 whole books!
Thanks for the recs! I will obviously have to start with “The Gay Science” for obvious reasons
😂😂😂
Thank you Stephen, for articulating my situation so well. I also yearn for a place within organised religion, especially when I see how well it sustains people when they are going through hard times. But I cannot make myself become a believer. I do find comfort in churches and cathedrals where the faith of decades has seeped into the stones.
I’m right there with you ❤️ thanks for reading and responding to my comment. I’m glad I’m not the only one who feels this way.
Religions and countries have powerful stories. My parents were Catholic, so I was raised as a Catholic. During my early years, I loved the Catholic story and adopted its teaching as a guide for me to follow, a way of living, a way to be good. Our parish priest changed that for me, it's a long story, but I watched him bully my father and everyone else in the parish to pledge money to rebuild a burned cathedral. Those who won't pledge, he shamed in public from the alter. My father worked hard. We had little money, so the multi-year pledge hurt my parents. Witnessing this resulted in my leaving the church at 16.
I tell this story because my early love of the Catholic story set a lifelong foundation of what I consider "good behavior." Stories are powerful, and depending on where you were born has everything to do with the story you hear.
What a crazy story!!! Though probably not unique, unfortunately. Religion isn't necessarily the same thing as "good," so it's good we are able to figure out what good looks like outside of that.
Why is there a struggle at all, I wonder? Where does the idea of “good” come from? What is wrong with us acting like birds or lions or any other natural thing? Why should the human standard be higher? I’m enjoyed reading this. Thanks.
Well I think we acted like birds and lions in the past (when we were small hunter gatherer tribes we were constantly warring against one another and in competition with one another—it was a predator/prey situation for sure). But at some point we had to learn how to get along and do right by each other and I think that is something we're still figuring out how to do!
Glad you liked it!
I was hoping that "Les Miserables" would appear in this forum, but honestly not like this.
With all due respect to your loss of the Catholic faith (something I mourned in your "Humanism is my religion now" piece), the antagonist of this novel is Javert, not Catholicism. The police inspector is the iron-clad specter of legalistic harshness, something that Christians certainly fall into, but he is not the faith itself, because that faith is what motivates the priest who shows Valjean gracious mercy. Here, the priest represents Christian love, the love that remakes Valjean from a bitter wounded man into the man who shows mercy to the poor, to his factory workers, to Fantine, to Cosette, to Marius, and even to Javert himself. The priest does not rely "on the condition that [Valjean] commends his soul to God," because the mercy isn't conditional. He takes no steps to make sure Valjean actually reforms. He shows Valjean mercy because Valjean the convict is already commended to God and is already redeemed through Christ, should he accept it. That is the identity that motivates Valjean in his good works.
Certainly, Catholicism (along with other denominations) value external good works in the world, sometimes even to a a judgmental emptiness of heart and reliance on guilt about earning a place in heaven by those works alone. Javert represents this guilt, the iron and punitive law pursuing Valjean as he himself pursues love of others (again, because he knows himself to be loved). So guilt-and-work-focused is Javert that he cannot stand mercy even for himself and would rather die than live in a world with such a moral framework. Works-based legalistic order motivates Javert, and so his world cannot hold.
What motivates Valjean to do good? It's not the legalistic good-doing of his doomed foil and antagonist. It is love for others born of God's love for him.
Well you touch on a good point: that Javert represents the sort of bad part of Catholicism ("I follow the laws to the letter and following them make you a good or bad person") while the priest represents the good part of Catholicism ("I believe humans are all good people and so I will not condemn any of them and in fact will help them.")
I love that the first 12 chapters of Les Miserables are about that priest, and showing how he grew up and developed morals differently from other members of his faith. His was a much simpler belief and Hugo did an excellent job at illustrating what a beautiful Catholicism could look like. (Indeed that's why the religion inspired me for so many years!)
Certainly! The bishop Bienvenu (we've been mistaken on his title, it turns out) is certainly set apart from other clergy in his love for the poor and certainly, to whom he thinks the church silver truly belongs. I looked a little more into the symbolic place of the bishop and learned he troubled the French Enlightenment and its anti-clerical stances, when Hugo included him as the pivotal hinge of Valjean's transformation (I'll share the link below).
But I do want to stress the place of God in the Bishop's heart of love, because God comes to occupy a similar place in Valjean's heart of love. The bishop tells Valjean, "Jean Valjean, my brother, you no longer belong to evil, but to good. It is your soul that I buy from you; I withdraw it from black thoughts and the spirit of perdition, and I give it to God." A professor quoted in the piece below calls Bienvenu "a Bishop whose center of gravity was a compassionate God attuned to the sound of suffering, never repelled by deformities of body and soul," who is crucial to why he does good and leads Valjean to the do the same. Indeed, the song of his entrance into paradise claims, "To love another person is to see the face of God." I don't think a humanist reading of Bienvenu, that explains his love as "humans are all good people" even as he recognizes the "black thoughts and perdition" in Valjean, holds water. God is His central locus of meaning for doing good.
I understand you don't recognize God as a source of good for yourself, which to be clear isn't what I'm debating here. I'm debating God's place specific to Les Miserables because to omit mention of Him in analysis of the bishop or Valjean seems to be a misreading of goodness and good people in the novel.
https://beyondthesestonewalls.com/blog/gordon-macrae/les-miserables-the-bishop-and-the-redemption-of-jean-valjean
"I don’t think people in need should have to wait around for people like me to be generous—that is an idle hope. Even when we aren’t selfish, we are unaware, or not paying attention, and I don’t think the of humanity should fall on our shoulders. I just want to be good, to be worthy of a good life—I want all of us to be." "I want people to be helped even if I'm not good enough to help them".
This line really got me. And it most definitely got me thinking.
I've been so busy with school work but somehow in the back of my head I told myself I'll have to come back and read this pub today. And it was worth it.
Always get me thinking...I love that.
It's weird I'm commenting when a lot of people have dropped their comments already😂
It's definitely something I've been thinking about too so I really appreciate you thinking it through with me!
Interesting thoughts on an ever present topic. We can never have that world you dream of unfortunately. As long as human beings by nature are selfish, and we are so due to the instinct for survival it will be so.
Yes but if we know that human beings are selfish (or a better phrasing: will act in their own best interest and the interest of their families) then we can take steps to make things better for them. For example: We might buy french fries at a restaurant, but because governments have regulated the use of transfats, they aren't as bad for us as they would be if the restaurant were allowed to use them. Even if we act in our own best interests, we can be more protected.
It's a long time since I saw Les Miserables and I have not yet read the book, so I enjoyed this article and found it very thought-provoking. Regarding your statement "I’ve always wanted to be an artist and the only thing I can do is use my art for good. It feels like it’s not enough." How could you know what effect your art has on others? It could conceivably bring joy, solace and inspiration to many others down through the years, and have a far more profound effect than anything more immediately useful. We don't know the knock-on effects of our decisions, so I think being true to oneself and using the skills and talents we have is a good starting point.
That's a very good point. I suppose many of us will never know the impact our work has on others. And art has probably been one of the things that has influenced my own life the most!
I rest my case 😁
Yes I agree with you Terry. There’s doing material good - helping people in need with things like housing, food, etc - and there’s another level of good, perhaps a higher level, that art can provide. Things like happiness, comfort, solace, instilling ambition, or just bringing some beauty in the world. The second good is hard to measure so we’re quicker to dismiss its effects. It’s much easier to count the number of meals one has donated than it is to count the joy that Victor Hugo’s words have brought people over the centuries, for instance.
You are so right. There is this "societal good" but there is also this "personal good." And art is incredibly powerful to the personal good!!!!!
Exactly, so well-expressed, Mikey, thank you. I only hope the Education Secretary or the PM, who has a thing about "useless degree subjects" reads these comments!
"That is something I have thought a lot about. What motivates us to do good? To live for those around us instead of ourselves? Can we do that without a moral imperative to do so? "
Yes.
"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin." Romans 3:19-20
If we define our goodness by the law, and through the law strive for righteousness, our human imperfections will trip us up and leave us condemned under the law.
But if we define our righteousness by our faith, and let our faith guide us to goodness, we will still uphold the law. Such is the power of faith.
Or, as Martin Luther wrote: "sin boldly but believe more boldly still."
But does goodness need to be defined by "the law" or by "faith?" Personally, I'd rather define it using "humanism" — the idea that all humans are good and are worthy of a good life. (And there are certainly humanist laws and humanist faiths!)
The elegance of free will. You get to choose.
The annoyance of free will. You have to deal with the consequences of your choice.
Define your goodness by the law. Then you must be judged by the law.
Define your goodness by your faith. Then you must have faith, and hold on to that faith, or be lost forever in doubt.
As for humans being good, certainly all humans are God's children, and whether our deeds commend us as good or evil, forgiveness is promised to everyone.
"Let the wicked forsake their ways
and the unrighteous their thoughts.
Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them,
and to our God, for he will freely pardon." -- Isaiah 55:7
Are we all therefore worthy? Jesus certainly says we are:
"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." -- Matthew 10:29-31
And yet despite this we still see evil in the world. We see war and greed. We see sickness and death. We see hunger and famine. And time after time after time we see that these arise because of evil choices of humans. We experience misfortune even we have not (to our knowledge) done anything wrong.
What then? Do we follow the advice of Job's wife, to curse God and die? Do we follow the advice of Job's friends to plead forgiveness for some imagined sin of which we are not guilty? Do we do as Job ultimately did, and simply demand of God an explanation, an answer to the eternal question "why"?
If we do as Job did, can we accept that God does not always tell us the why?
Can we accept that, when it comes to righteousness and goodness and a "good life", it is never a matter of being "worthy"? Can we find a way to be okay with the premise that, as Clint Eastwood's character William Munny said to Gene Hackman's Little Bill in "Unforgiven": "Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it."?
It also points towards a middle way, a kind of a-line-runs-through-everything. For example, religion offers many benefits, but it can also be its own trap. Should we walk a kind of middle path? This is something I’m wrestling with. Thank you, this was great!
I so relate! I often find it sad that when I left my "belief" I left "Catholocism." Because I love everything about Catholocism, I find it such a beautiful religion in practice and ritual.
I actually tried to create a sort of middle way when I completed an art project trying to capture who the Virgin Mary was to her people in her time (rather than all of the art projects that cast her something very different during the Renaissance!). If you're interested you can find that here: https://ellegriffin.com/mary/
Thanks for sharing, Elle! I loved the photos!
This is the petty pace. Hop out to a bigger place for dealing with big questions. You are in a universe, you lucky stiff having a human life. You are the creation of a 13.8 billion year stunning process, where all, including us, is evolving in an expanding universe that's alive. We are here to contribute to evolution, where we will become a caring species. That bigger frame around everything offers noble purpose!
I so relate to this, Elle! I kept thinking as I read of Karen Armstrong’s brilliant book about the origins of the world’s great religions, which emerged in different corners in a relatively short time span, all in response to human suffering. (“The Great Transformation.”) It sounds reductive but what I took from her is that all religion is at base a codification of the Golden Rule. If that’s not utopian, I don’t know what is.
I often wonder why so many NGOs must exist to do the work that governments could and should be doing. Last thought: philanthropy often hides (or excuses?) enormous, obscene wealth, and in amounts the giver may hardly feel. I’d rather have a democratic process to determine societal values and priorities than entrust that support for pet causes of a few egotistical billionaires
If only the internet would behave by the "golden rule" 🥰
Also I'm with you. I think philanthropy arose to support the gaps the government wasn't reaching. So in that case, it is a societal good. But there are ways governments can be more supportive of national and global good. And ideally I do think they operate that way!
Fortunately, Substack does come close!
You're so right. Times are changing!
Sometimes I forget how scary smart you are, then you go a write something like this piece, a reminding sledgehammer. I've long struggled with "what is good," but mainly in terms of what is good writing. There is, no doubt, an x-y cross over between aesthetic and moral good, but defining it is always so slippery. It seems that time is the main arbiter perhaps for both. For example, that suit you love, could it be an aesthetic triumphant that somehow touches a moral nerve? Or can an abstract painting, say a splash of black paint on white canvas, have any moral value? Don't know. Neither are as compelling as a loaf of bread, an object of moral value displayed aesthetically. What is . . . good?
Wow, thank you! What a compliment!!!
Als you bring out a good point about aesthetic vs. moral good. Most of the time I think moral trumps aesthetic—I think it's more important that everyone's needs are taken care than it is for me to buy frivolous things for myself. But then I am so personally moved by the aesthetic and I think that is makes life worthwhile. If we can some how reinforce the moral good at a societal level, then we will be free to enjoy life personally on the aesthetic level!
Fadcinating essay, Elle. I’ve always struggled with this “religion-imposed” goodness. I used to be very religious, but am not anymore. Still, I help out when I can. I don’t earn enough to be able to donate regularly, but I do when I have the money. I don’t think my atheism has made much of a change in that regard. But I wonder, and I always have, how much of this goodness, if it’s born out of faith, is actually genuine. I mean, of course you’re going to be nice to someone else, if the alternative is that you go to hell. That’s not selflessness; it’s the epitome of selfishness. So I don’t know, it is a head scratcher for sure. Your essay did a great job asking these questions.
There's definitely a lot to think about here. I do feel excited by the idea though that as globalization happens we are developing a more universal definition of "good." If you get someone from every possible religion in a room, there will be certain things we all agree are "good" or "bad" and that means goodness and badness are independent of faith, they are just human!
Yes, I can get behind that concept for sure! It’s a beautiful idea. Maybe we’ll one day reach the emotional and ethical maturity to strive towards an utopian society. Not saying we’ll ever reach it, just maybe we’ll be mature enough to see it as the right model.
Utopia is a work in progress, something we are always working toward, and always will be. It's a journey not a destination!
Can we at least get hanging gardens on every street as a minimum
THATS A MUST
Yes, please!
This is wonderful. I recently read a Van Gogh biography, and one part that stuck with me was the description of Hugo's funeral procession (Van Gogh was in Paris at the time). Over two million people lines the streets of the route Hugo's casket would take. 2 million! At a time that the population of Paris was far below that. Talk about loved and respected! Speaking of utopian novels, have you read Ministry of the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson--was wondering if you considered it utopian. (I kind of do.) Anyway, thanks for sharing this.
Yes!!!! Victor Hugo was a complete legend. I understand why 2 million followed his casket. He is still one of the great thinkers, and I have never read someone who thought so deeply about life and human goodness as he did.
And yes! I haven't read the Ministry of the Future yet, but it's on my utopian reading list: https://www.elysian.press/p/study-utopian-literature-in-2023
I've actually scheduled a call with Kim Stanley Robinson to talk about the book and his utopian vision and I'll be publishing it to my Substack in November!
That's incredible! Ministry for the Future means a lot to me. I consider it the first "policy novel" of the climate change era--the story itself kicks butt (of course), but what underlies it all is ideas and actual policy suggestions on how to solve problems. It's really incredible.
I'm so excited to read it!!!! He's one of the very few utopian writers of the modern age, so he's working off a much better data set than previous utopian thinkers (who were writing before all the incredible things we've accomplished since 1900).
I'm trying to make my utopian novel not "kick butt" (why do they all do this??) but I do love that they all spell out how we can actually solve problems (and I still want to do that too). Here's the chapter where I try to come up with a solution, Kim Stanley Robinson Style, if you're interested: https://www.elysian.press/p/oblivion-7-edited
I will definitely check this out!
I can't tell if I feel inspired or defeated after reading this (both?). Jean Valjean is an individual and an inspiration to do good despite it all. Defeated because, at least the way many are built today, governments are full of the same kind of moral corruption that people are. I mean, governments are made of people after all.
Yes, there are governments that are corrupt, just as there are people that are corrupt. But governments have also done more good for the world than individual humans have done (because it's a bunch of people rallying together to try to do good!). I am actually empowered that we have used governments to make tremendous good in the world! (Though I am aware they have also done bad. I guess the moral conundrum exists either way 😆)
Great post and perhaps my favorite musical of all time. I have not read the book.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the necessity for American philanthropy is created by our unnecessarily weak social safety net. It's a grievous moral flaw of how we live now.
Your concise and beautifully written post led me to subscribe. Look forward to reading you in the future.
robertsdavidn.substack.com/about
Les Mis is my favorite musical of all time too!!!!!! I saw it first in seventh grade and it changed my life. At the time I thought I wanted to be a broadway actress, then later I read the book and knew I wanted to be a writer!
Thank you so much for subscribing! So excited to think through a better future with you!
I saw it after a long day at work and was dreading it. It had just come out. All I knew was that it was three hours long and I was tired and grumpy.
Instead i was absolutely entranced. "One Day More" is my favorite musical song of all time.
Empty Chairs at Empty Tables hits me in the feels every time
Oh my god yes. That song is SO EMPOWERING. Gets me in tears every time.
Glad to hear you’ve subscribed to Elle’s Substack, David!