The Superficiality of Self-Denial

In Benjamin Franklin’s article “Self-Denial Not the Essence of Virtue,” Franklin suggests that self-denial has no bearing on whether or not a man is virtuous, but instead influences the merits of a man. He writes, “… the Word Virtue in the above Assertion, is meant, Merit; and the greater the Self-Denial the greater the Merit,” (p. 243). My understanding of his argument is that to call a man virtuous is too large a comment on a man’s hardwired nature and personality, which as mere observers we cannot accurately categorize. Franklin makes this distinction because he feels that all we can judge a fellow man by are a series of positive and negative actions. What we do not have the authority to do, however, is make claims about a man’s virtuousness when we are collectively uninformed with regards to what goads a man to act in a positive or negative fashion. Franklin believes that as observers, it is only within our means to judge a man on an act-by-act basis. We have no right to combine a particular string of acts in an attempt to gain a deeper understanding of any man’s innate nature. Through this point in the article, I generally agree with Franklin’s sentiment. The aspect of the article I find most curious are the lines, “… Without Self-Denial there is no Merit; and the greater the Self-Denial the greater the Merit. The Self-denial here meant, must be when our Inclinations are towards Vice, or else it would still be Nonsense,” (p. 243). The word “merit,” as defined in the dictionary, is the quality of being particularly good or worthy, so as to deserve praise or reward. When one considers a fairly common vice such as alcohol, this statement is logical. Franklin claims that should a man prone to indulging in alcohol resist such a temptation, the merit is that man’s resistance. I would argue, however, that there is one vice nearly every human being shares, and that is the deep personal satisfaction associated with helping the needy. Anyone who has partaken in any sort of community service project or has volunteered their time to help those less fortunate than themselves surely deserves praise. In such a situation, one could argue that the element of self-denial is evident in a person’s decision to focus on others in need rather than him or herself. Yet, anyone that has been involved in this sort of charitable activity cannot deny the deeply personal satisfaction associated with acting in a charitable manner. Perhaps I am wildly cynical, but if it weren’t for this borderline addictive sense of accomplishment and self-worth that is derived from helping the needy, who is to say anyone would participate in such endeavors? Could it not also be argued that at least a part of an alcoholic’s decision to abstain is that the resistance will undoubtedly result in praise? I think we can all agree in the worthiness of community service. But by Franklin’s argument, there is actually no merit involved in partaking in charitable activities if we are ultimately indulging in the vices of praise and self-contentedness. Self-denial and merit have nothing to do with one another.