P. S. Greenspan “Guilt and Virtue”

            In his article title “Guilt and Virtue” P.S. Greenspan seeks to displace guilt from the grips of ethics of duty, or duty ethics (in his article Greenspan uses both terms interchangeably). Briefly, ethics of duty “takes acts [or actions] as the primary objects of moral evaluation” (Greenspan 57). In other words, human acts or actions determine the degree of our morality. Greenspan sees this placement of guilt within duty ethics as problematic and seeks instead to interpret guilt through “virtue ethics” (Greenspan 57) and not duty ethics. The ethics of virtue according to Greenspan “emphasizes the evaluation of persons and personal traits in connection with notions of character” (57). Greenspan here signals that acts should not be the sole factors in determining guilt, but that guilt should be evaluated as a defining label of a person’s character and personal traits. If an act is viewed as wrong “or a violation of moral obligation” then according to duty ethics guilt should ensue after this particular act; Greenspan seems to disagree with this theory and instead links guilt with violations of one’s virtue, or “moral perfection” (Greenspan 57).

            Greenspan sees guilt as a “requirement of imperfect virtue” (58), in other words, one cannot be both perfectly virtuous and guilty simultaneously. Greenspan borrows this idea that one cannot be both virtuous and guilty from Aristotle, who suggests that guilt or shame is not a virtue and hence is a lapse from moral perfection (Greenspan 58). Then the question arises, what does it mean to have virtue, or better yet, what defines a complete virtuous person? Greenspan sees the answer in admiration: “[t]he question of overall virtue…asks whether someone is an admirable person…on the whole, as opposed to being admirable only with some qualification” (60).  What Greenspan is saying is that virtue is not quantifiable according to status or title, but rather virtue is part of person’s character. A person cannot be virtuous simply because he holds a respectable title that connotes virtue (such as President, King, Senator, etc.) but rather virtue precedes a person’s title. Given this situation we can see where problems start to arise given Aristotle’s theory of virtue.

            Virtue is not something that is automatically acquired but rather is measured or “graded” (Greenspan 61) according to a person’s sense of guilt and moral worth. Guilt does not diminish a person’s sense of virtue or virtuousness but rather enhances it.  Given that guilt requires a “heightened sensitivity to one’s own moral wrongs” (Greenspan 61), guilt does not seem to diminish a person’s moral worthiness. Virtue is not measured solely by actions, but rather lies in a person’s sense of guilt and overall character. Given the aforementioned definition of virtue, guilt then is “better in a way than perfect virtue” (Greenspan 61) because it designates a person’s responsibility for past wrongdoings and in doing so indicates a person’s awareness of their own morality and moral faults. Therefore, the presence of guilt establishes the presence of virtue (and not the lack thereof) since guilt is part of a person’s character. This all connects to Greenspan’s idea of an “admirable person” (60) insofar as an “admirable person” has to feel guilt for his actions in order to have virtue (based on virtue ethics and not duty ethics), an idea that we will come back to in interpreting Crime and Punishment and The Sense of an Ending.

Julian Barnes The Sense of an Ending

The Sense of an Ending by Julian Barnes deals with guilt and remorse and what we decide to do with both. In the novel, Tony is constantly battling over his guilt, and his relationships seem volatile because of this. His sense of guilt and remorse, in my view, comes from a misunderstanding of his experiences and the unreliability of his memories. But what seems more important to Tony’s character is how he deals with his guilt and remorse how this influences his acts/actions.  And in my view this encapsulates his whole character, and influences the actions he takes. He has a misunderstanding of his past, and this turns into guilt, which then turns into anger, which then turns into bad decisions, like sending the profanity laced letter to Adrian and Veronica. Tony’s character will be interpreted according to Greenspan’s idea of the “admirable person” (60) and his guilt, acts/actions will be interpreted using Greenspan’s Ethics of Duty guilt theory.

            We all make bad decisions, some that affect our life more than others, but it’s impossible to change the past. When we try to change the past, which is an impossibility, we are drowned with remorse. In the novel Tony the narrator defines remorse as stronger than guilt and the feeling that occurs when you come to the realization that the past is unchangeable. The bad decisions and actions/acts that Tony makes are irreversible. Furthermore, remorse is the feeling that enough time has passed that making amends or asking for forgiveness would be ineffective. The problem with Tony is his remorse. Tony in the novel does not understand nor grasp his guilt/remorse and does not understand that his guilt/remorse might be misguided or beyond repair.

            Take for example his relationship with Veronica. This relationship seems to have scarred him (no matter how short it lasted) for life and he even talks about the circumstances of this relationship to his wife (when they were married). He seems to want to grasp a complete and succinct understanding of this past relationship, but what he experienced, remembers, and feels guilt for are all completely different things. He seems to have guilt for breaking up with Veronica and then sleeping with her, but this guilt does not necessarily mean he has to act on it. We experience guilt every day, in my view, but we have to choose our battles and sometimes the wiser choice is not to act on your guilt and just live with it (with the memories and feelings).

            Looking back over the tragically insulting letter that he sent Adrian and Veronica in which he stated that “it would be unjust to inflict in some innocent foetus the prospect of discovering that it was the fruit of your loins” (Barnes 105), Tony starts to feel a sentiment of regret and guilt. This was by far the stupidest thing he could have done, and he certainly should feel guilt and even remorse over it. He tries to wash away his guilt and responsibility by arguing that the young snobbish Tony that wrote that letter is not the same Tony re-reading it years later: “I didn’t recognize that part of myself from which the letter came” (Barnes 107). Certainly the fifty-or sixty-something year old Tony is not the same young Tony who wrote letter, but he is still culpable. I would argue that he does recognize that young self, but does not like his young self. In some way he is still the same, still acting recklessly and deceiving himself.

            So the question arises: does Tony hold any virtue? Following Greenspan’s argument one must have guilt in order to have virtue. Tony certainly has guilt, but what does this say about his character? Greenspan states that one must have a “heightened sensitivity to one’s own moral wrongs” (Greenspan 61) in order for a sentiment/emotion to be defined as guilt. Tony definitely exhibits this sentiment after re-reading his letter to Adrian and Veronica: “And so, for the first time, I began to feel a more general remorse—a feeling somewhere between self-pity and self-hatred—about my whole life” (Barnes 109). His sensitivity towards his own wrongs is heightened to an extreme that it borders on self-hatred. Tony’s guilt is overbearing and causes recklessness in his life. But what is Tony to do with his guilt? He seems honestly apologetic to Veronica, but of course the feeling is not mutual, and she responds with her ever-clever remark: “’You just don’t get it, do you?’”(Barnes 110). Veronica seems to insinuate that Tony does not understand the circumstances behind his guilt. In other words, he seems detached from his guilt, and acts upon it simply because he feels guilt but not because he understands the “why” behind the guilt. He feels guilty because it is the morally right thing to do in order to try to right his wrongs. But he still seems detached from the whole experience. His actions are motivated by guilt, but is this enough to have virtue?     

            If we reject the theoretical trajectory behind Ethics of Duty, and instead interpret Tony through the theoretical framework of Ethics of Virtue we can see how Tony can be interpreted as a virtuous person and even an “admirable person” (Greenspan 60).  As mentioned earlier Duty Ethics defines virtue primarily through the acts or actions that a person takes, regardless of the person’s character or guilt. Duty Ethics leaves little breathing room as far as moral evaluation is concerned. It seems that the moral compass in Duty Ethics are acts/actions and nothing else. If an action violates a person’s moral perfection then a person does not exhibit virtue, according to the theory behind Ethics of Duty. In other words, once Tony starts feeling guilty for the letter, he has already lost his virtue (according to Ethics of Duty). The letter signifies the act/action that violated his moral perfection and guilt signifies his “imperfect virtue” (Greenspan 58)

            Through an Ethics of Virtue lens Tony seems to exhibit the characteristics of a morally upright person. He reveals guilt for his actions, but this guilt is part of a larger “evaluation of […] personal traits in connection with notions of character” (Greenspan 57).  Virtue should be evaluated as part of, or along with, a person overall character, and Tony seems to agree:

Does character develop over time? In novels, of course it does: otherwise there wouldn’t be much of a story. But in life? I sometimes wonder. Our attitudes and opinions change, we develop new habits and eccentricities; but that’s something different, more like decoration. Perhaps character resembles intelligence, except that character peaks a little later: between twenty and thirty, say. And after that, we’re just stuck with what we’ve got. We’re on our own. If so, that would explain a lot of lives, wouldn’t it? And also—if this isn’t too grand a word—our tragedy.  (Barnes 113)  

In the above passage Tony is arguing that he is not the same person, and does not hold the same character, as he did when he wrote the letter. If guilt is part of his character now then his guilt should be evaluated along with his other personal traits like love for his daughter and his family. an “admirable person” (Greenspan 60) has to feel guilt for his actions in order to have virtue (based on virtue ethics), then Tony’s guilt can be evaluated as evidence of his virtue. Given that his guilt is evidence if his virtue then we can safely conclude that Tony is an “admirable person” given that “[t]he question of overall virtue…asks whether someone is an admirable person…on the whole, as opposed to being admirable only with some qualification” (Greenspan 60). 

Emmanuel Levinas “Ethics and Infinity”

            In the collection of conversations titled Ethics and Infinity the philosopher Emmanuel Levinas summarizes his various theories on the Other. The Other is any other human being, but the knowledge and perception of the Other lies in the face. Levinas concludes that “you turn yourself toward the Other as toward an object” (85) but you do not achieve knowledge/perception of the Other as a human until you encounter “a nose, eyes, a forehead, a chin” (Levinas 85). In other words, the humanity of the Other lies in the face.

            Once the Other’s humanity is encountered through the face, an ethical responsibility towards the Other unfolds. By looking at the face of the Other an ethic duty arises in which “the relation toward the face is straightaway ethical” (Levinas 87).  By this Levinas means that once we have encountered the face a requirement towards responsibility ensues, a responsibility to not kill. Because of the humanity behind the face of the Other Levinas insists that the “face is what one cannot kill” (87). This is the ethical responsibility behind the face, once we have encountered the face of the Other we cannot kill it, based on our mutual humanity and knowledge/perception of this humanity.

            Levinas overall theoretical framework behind the Other is extremely complex, especially as it relates to overall justice. If we take the axiom “Thou shalt not kill” as valid, then Levinas argues that justice ensues from this axiom when multiplied. The face of the Other commands the axiom “Thou shalt not kill” as an order (89) and this command ensues when the Other is next to you. Multiplied this axiom many times over to cover all of humanity, and this command, “Thou shalt not kill”, becomes justice. Levinas insists that the “multiplicity of men and the presence of someone else next to the Other. . .condition[s] [our] laws and establish[es] justice” (89). The ethical responsibility to not kill the Other when multiplied manifold over humanity creates justice. Ethics precedes justice.

Feodor Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment

Raskolnikov’s dream of a murdered mare symbolizes the Nihilist movement and its theme of utilizing violence to achieve social, political, and economic change, it is also a metaphor for Raskolnikov’s inner psychology, which helps us understand his reasoning for murdering Ivanovna, the pawn broker.  

            The Nihilist movement of 19th century Russia centered on the concept that social, political, and economic change cannot come about without the destruction of the current political and social institutions. This movement accepted violence as not only morally right but necessary. The central event of the Nihilist movement was the assassination of Alexander II. Of course, violence for the sake of violence is never morally right nor acceptable, and the dream of the dying mare illustrates the morally objectionable action of the Nihilist.

            In the scene, the horse gets whipped and eventually murdered for no particular reason other than for the drunken enjoyment of the crowd. From a psychological perspective, the dream symbolizes Raskolnikov’s bipolarity towards violence and his society. By bipolarity, I mean his contempt toward violence in his society (evident in the dream), his use of violence (by killing pawnbroker), and his defense of violence (by writing his essay later in the novel). In the dream, Raskolnikov interferes with the violence going on and even gets a whip landed on him: “one of the whips stung his face, but he did not feel it; he was wringing his hands and crying aloud” (Dostoevsky 49). Even though in the dream he is a child, he consciously objects to the violence perpetrated by the group.  This act symbolizes his perversion towards his society and their acceptance of violence. He seems broken hearted that the horse is being whipped mercilessly with no concern for her well-being. The crowd is drunk with both liquor and with the madness of violence. He interferes because he rejects the violence, but at the same time, he accepts and defends the ideology behind the violence.

            Right after Raskolnikov wakes up from the dream, he immediately starts thinking about the crime and if he should go through with it. He starts to psycho-analyze himself and his dream: “I must have realized that I should never carry it out, so why have I gone on tormenting myself until now?” (Dostoevsky 51). But his bipolarity toward violence comes through and the irony lies in the fact that he actually goes through with the murder of the pawnbroker a couple of pages after this event. As the novel goes on, he convinces himself that his violent act will have positive consequences for his society. But he does not realize the perversion behind his reasoning. Raskolnikov gets so caught up in his own mind and ideas that he loses sight of who he is, his morality, and his humanity. His article, “On Crime,” focuses on his Napoleonic ideas and justification of violence.