If you asked twenty good men today what they thought of the highest of the virtues, nineteen of them would reply, Unselfishness. But if you had asked almost any of the great Christians of old, he would have replied, Love.
You see what has happened? A negative term has been substituted for a positive, and this is of more than philological importance. The negative idea of Unselfishness carries with it the suggestion not primarily of securing good things for others, but of going without them ourselves, as if our abstinence and not their happiness was the most important point.
I do not think this is the Christian virtue of Love. The New Testament has lots to say about self-denial, but not about self-denial as an end in itself. We are told to deny ourselves and to take up our crosses in order that we may follow Christ; and nearly every description of what we shall ultimately find if we do so contains an appeal to desire. If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and earnestly to hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I submit that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith.
Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.
— C.S. Lewis, “The Weight of Glory” (1942)
Via Shaun’s post reflecting on the murder of Cerina Fairfax by her husband, former Virginia Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax, just before he took his own life. The whole piece is worth a read, not just for the dissection of the political destruction of Justin Fairfax and rumination on the sacrifices of political life, but for the C.S. Lewis insights like the one above and the following:
If each side had been frankly contending for its own real wish, they would have all kept within the bounds of reason and courtesy; but just because the contention is reversed and each side is fighting the other side’s battle, all the bitterness which really flows from thwarted self-righteousness and obstinacy and the accumulated grudges of the last ten years is concealed from them by the nominal or official ‘Unselfishness’ of what they are doing or, at least, held to be excused by it.
And more from Shaun himself:
St. Thomas Aquinas defines love as willing the good of another, which is quite a different thing than unselfishness.
Love can be unselfish, but unselfishness is by no means love.
…
In this, the modern mantra of “support” simply doesn’t do the trick. We aren’t called to support one another; we are called to love one another and in the Christian tradition to love one another as Christ loves us. We are not individuals who need therapy to learn how to deal with a cruel world, but persons with souls who interact with the world through our friends, family, and relations. We are not means to an end to be manipulated and used to get what we want, but rather each of us are ends unto ourselves.
In all of this, Shaun shines a light on what has been bugging me about the modern “stoicism” movement that seems to constitute the prevalent philosophy of a lot of men these days. Maybe it’ll rattle more thoughts out of me, I dunno. But Shaun’s onto something here…