Success-Through-Moral-Failure: Shakespeares King Lear and the biblical King David Dr Anna Abram, Heythrop College, University of London

Introduction Literature and ethics is not a typical pair. Even though individual ethicists (philosophical, religious or applied) refer to literature in their ethical enquiries, there has not been a great deal of proper engagement between the two discourses (several exceptions will be noted later) . To some extent the writers and scholars from the respective disciplines have been mistrustful of each other. From the perspective of ethics, and this is the discourse from which I am approaching this study, one of the reasons for this state of affairs is that ethics as a normative rational discipline doesnt easily operate with the concepts of creativity, free improvisation and imagination, which are key functions of a literary mind. Ethicists have been largely suspicious of these functions. In Greek philosophy we can find favourable views of imagination. For example, for Aristotle, imagination was afforded a central role in how humans piece together their world 1. But, in the history of Western philosophy (up until Kant), many philosophers held that imagination was a secondary movement following upon perception; its role was deemed to be essentially reproductive, in the service of memory and reason2. As a consequence, imagination was often regarded as an inappropriate faculty to rely on for knowledge; being a subjective sense it was viewed as incapable of contributing to objective moral claims. Admittedly, there can be problems (distortions) when it comes to making moral judgments or formulating standards of moral correctness on the basis of imagination (unless we are narrowing the term to moral imagination). Moreover, imagination has not only a creative but can exercise a destructive power too (we can be attached to certain types of images which can hinder our moral growth). Nevertheless, imagination, as I hope to illustrate in this essay, has to be neither dangerously misleading nor solely subjective. The position voiced here would be that without a proper appreciation of imagination and without a constructive engagement with the works of art, ethics is in danger of becoming an impoverished discourse. It is beyond the scope of this study to substantiate this position further except than to say that literature (by no means all literature) in its various genres can spark a unique way of seeing that is indispensible to morality. It can foster a deeper way of seeing that embraces ambiguity, unpredictability and uncertainty. Stories are an irreplaceable medium of a holistic moral education. Literature can offer a compelling vision of goodness, stir or mobilize the imagination, connect reason with emotions and with ones life experience in a way that many post-Enlightenment approaches to ethics have not been able to do in a satisfactory way. Thankfully, there are numerous contemporary thinkers who are determined to stretch the boundaries of ethics and ensure that literature has a legitimate place in ethical reflection. Martha Nussbaum, for example, in her Poetic Justice links certain types of political economists with Mr. Grangrind of Charles Dickens Hard Times3. In the Introduction to her Lovess Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature, Nussbaum talks more positively about her experience of high school when she was learning to ask philosophical questions when reading literary works
1 2

See Aristotle, De Anima http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/soul.mb.txt, accessed on 20 October 2011;Part III Mary Warnock offers a very useful summary and philosophical perspective on imagination in her Imagination and Time, Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1994. She also studies the romantic poets approach to imagination.

Nussbaum, M., Love's Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature. Oxford: OUP, 1992

than about her graduate studies which made her aware of the hostility of ethical theories towards literature. Hence in Loves Knowledge she is determined to return to the fiction of Proust, Henry James and Dickens4. Vigen Guroian, a theological ethicist, refers to childrens stories in his work and sees imagination as a key moral faculty5. He strongly endorses a point made by an American writer Flannery OConnor that a story is a way to say something that can't be said any other way [...]. You tell a story because a statement would be inadequate 6. An approach to ethics which creates a useful space for the engagement with stories is virtue ethics. In the past three decades virtue ethicists have not only been recovering ancient concepts of character and virtue but have also been contributing to discussions (initiated by cognitive psychologists such as Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg) on moral development7. Thanks to these interdisciplinary engagements, we are able to formulate a relatively constructive (even if still incomplete, as I shall illustrate shortly) account of moral growth8 which can serve as a useful tool in working out several ethical meanings of stories. However, despite the nearly-ripe fruits of this engagement, neither of the two discourses (whether considered separately or together) captures adequately an aspect of human life that, regrettable at first, can benefit us in a moral sense. This aspect can be designated as success-through-failure. And, it is this aspect that literature can help us grasp more coherently, and therefore extend the insights available in the discourse of ethics. Literature, I shall argue, can offer us an imaginative opportunity to explore the dynamics of growth through moral failure and enrich our moral understanding. This is not meant to suggest that in order to address the issue in question literature is all we need. We need both: ethics and literature or; each can deepen the other. I am not suggesting here that writers should engage in the study of moral theory but some kind of exposure to the discourse of ethics can be beneficial to them. However, this is not the point we will be addressing here, neither will we explore in detail some of the important questions such as why exactly does ethics needs literature and literature needs ethics?; Do we intrinsically need literature in order to be better people?; Is there something in the literary medium which is uniquely able to convey the moral message?; Can we find the same message that a good story conveys in some other way?. Indirectly, some answers will emerge. Our main question will be: what (according to the literary narratives we will consider here) does growththrough-moral-failure entail? In short, we will propose to view the relationship between ethics and literature as complementary, each as being at the (instrumental rather than intrinsic) service to the other. Even if it is the stories that speak more directly to heart, foster more openly what we later call moral seeing, and are instrumental in motivating us to become a good person, it is ethics that helps us reflect constructively on our reactions to the stories and enables us to articulate our thoughts on what it means to be a good or morally mature person. We will aim to show that ethics, represented here by virtue ethics and supplemented by insights from

Nussbaum, M, Love's Knowledge

See Guroian, V. Tending the Heart of Virtue: How Classic Stories Awaken a Child's Moral Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press. 1998. Also, Vincent MacNamara makes useful points about the relationship between morality and literature in his The Call to Be Human: Making Sense of Morality, Dublin: Veritas Publications, 2010. 6 See F.O'Connor, Mystery and Manners (New York: Farrar, StrausandGiroux,1990), 96
7

See, for example, Paul Crittetendens Learning to be Moral: Philosophical Thoughts About Moral Development (NY: Humanity Books, 1990). Apart from the standard developmental theories of Piaget, Kohlberg and Gilligan, Crittenden considers ethical and developmental ideas of Hegel, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Marx and Nietzsche. This is a very thorough work, but it has no reference to moral failure.
8

For an overview of one such account, see Abram, A., The Philosophy of Moral Development . , Forum Philosophicum, Spring 2007, 71-86.

developmental moral psychology9, can be a useful tool for unpacking and articulating the moral meanings of literary narratives. Our investigation will focus on the moral situations of two kings: Shakespeares King Lear and the biblical King David. We will read these stories with our ethical concerns in mind; we will examine what these stories do to our moral understanding of growth through moral failure. Both kings are known for their moral failures but they are also known for the moral breakthroughs they experienced as the aftermath of their failures. We will examine their pre-moral failure, moral failure and post-moral failure realities. This double literary examination, aided by interdisciplinary tools from developmental moral psychology and virtue ethics, will lead us to propose that moral failure, although disruptive to the linear developmental pattern as considered in the psychological theories, can be conducive to moral growth in the context of a persons moral life history. Preliminary thoughts about moral failure In philosophy moral failure is an ambiguous idea. When moral failure is considered, much of scholarly debates tend to focus on issues of blame and moral luck: for example, should the person be blamed for their immoral behaviour (failure to act rightly) if their behaviour is an outcome of ignorance or luck? When Aristotle talks about moral failure he uses the term akrasia usually translated as the lack of self-control. The problem that has most interested various commentators on the Nichomachean Ethics is one which Aristotle inherited from Socrates via Plato. Socrates maintained that nobody knowingly does wrong: to do wrong is to harm oneself, and nobody would knowingly wish to harm themselves. Plato made some concessions, although he maintained that people could not act against what they know to be right, however, they could act against their moral beliefs, since these can be easily undermined. Gerry Hughes points out that it was a commonplace of Platos Academy that moral failure was a matter of ignorance and less a matter of weakness: after all, how could anyone knowingly choose less than the best for themselves?10. Yet, these conclusions are problematic, and, according to Hughes, they seemed so for Aristotle who in his first ten chapters of Book VII of the Nicomachean Ethics tries to resolve the problem. Hughes offers an illuminating explanation of Aristotles approach to moral failure. He draws our attention to the three character traits highlighted by Aristotle: moral weakness, softness and brutishness (which can be contrasted with self-control, endurance and superhuman goodness) which Aristotle tests by setting different puzzles which imply that the wrongdoer must in some ways act knowingly, even if is not clear exactly in what way. Hughes wants to reconcile these two positions: one the one hand knowing that one is doing something wrong and on the other (Socrates point) that nobody knowingly does wrong. It seems that for Aristotle moral failure does involve knowing, but only with some qualifications and that the different ways in which someone can know and not know are relevant since there are different kinds of moral failure: failure to do the right thing either out of ignorance or weakness of the will, or out of a defective emotional life or self-deception. This is helpful as it suggests that when
9

When I refer to the insights of moral psychology I have in mind three main schools of developmental psychology: Freudian School that deals with ego development Piagetan School that deals with cognitive development and Flavellian School that deals with social development, affective development, and (affective)/interpersonal development The theories that I examined in my research are of: Erik Erikson (as a representative of the Freudian school) see Erikson E.H., Identity and the Life Cycle, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1980; Identity: Youth and Crisis, New York: W.W. Norton, 1968; Insight and Responsibility, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1964; Laurence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan (as representative of the Piagetian school) see Kohlberg L., The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages, San Francisco: Harper and Row Publishers, 1984; Gilligan C., In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Womens Development, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. When I refer to virtue ethics and I have in my mind both classic approaches to virtue and character as well as their contemporary advocates. 10 Hughes, Gerry, Aristotle on Ethics, London: Routledge, 2001, 145-165.

talking about moral failure we need to look to its causes and take on board that some aspects of moral failure can be conscious while others unconscious. But, even if are able to tidy up our thinking about moral failure, we are still left with the question: how to deal (successfully) with moral failure so that the failure acts as an engine of future moral growth. In other words, what else (apart from looking into the causes of moral failure) needs to be done? Within developmental moral psychology (cognitive as well as ego psychology) there also seems to be a lack of clarity regarding the issue of growth-through-moral-failure. Erikson in his theory of ego development does at least raise the issue when he describes tensions in resolving life crises and transitions from stage to stage. He speaks about the vulnerability of a person: when a person grows he or she is open to failure. Erikson seems to suggest that human life is faced with a constant threat of decay and the possibility of moral failure 11. However, he does not go far enough as to say how moral failure can be used positively and become instrumental for further growth. We shall add one point of clarification before we turn to the two stories: we are not proposing that moral failure always leads to moral growth. Biblical Judas (in contrast to biblical Peter who repents and becomes the rock of the Christian Church despite, or perhaps thanks to, his failure) is not able to move forward (though it can be argued that his suicide is a sign of moral sensitivity). Hitler and Stalin are also examples of the lack of growth through moral failure. Although moral failure can clearly lead to further moral deterioration, our interest here is moral transformation through failure. King Lear The main plot of Shakespeares King Lear concerns the king and his daughters, Goneril, Regan and Cordelia. Lear abdicates and plans to divide his kingdom between the three daughters, with the best portion going to the most deserving the one who can make the greatest show of love. In fact he has already apportioned the land, so the love test is meaningless, but the king enjoys flattery. Goneril and Regan readily play their parts, giving lengthy descriptions of their love, and through this win their fathers approval. Cordelia, the youngest daughter, who loves her father dearly and dislikes the way that her sisters lie, decides that she will love, and be silent 12. She answers her father plainly with sincerity, intelligence and a kind of love that acknowledges the limitations as well as the extent of paternal love. But Lear does not understand this. He feels rejected and, in turn, he rejects his daughter. Lear becomes dependent on Goneril and Regan, who are greedy and self-oriented, and who eventually dispossess their father. They turn him out of doors into a wild and stormy night. With the help of others - in particular, his servant Kent and his Fool - the king finds shelter in a deserted hovel. He encounters the madman, Poor Tom who has also taken refuge from the storm. The madman is in disguise his real name is Edgar and he is the elder son of the Earl of Gloucester. His younger brother manipulated their father to believe that Edgar was plotting against Gloucesters life. Lears stay in the hovel is very significant. It is here that, inspired by the words of his servant Kent, for the first time he begins to think of others before himself. It is here that his moral breakthrough takes place. Away from the comforts of his palace, he strips down his shell that he built over the years; he begins to see himself, his past, and his treatment of Cordelia in a different
11

Eriksons view of moral failure is rather general: he simply suggests that therapeutic techniques can solve the issue of overcoming moral failure. See Erikson, Identity and the Life Cycle, pp.138-146. Shakespeare, King Lear, Act I, Scene I.

12

 more honest - way. Here on exile he realizes his fault. He is aware that it is too late to turn the clock back, yet he has a deep desire to somehow restore what he has destroyed. He wants to meet Cordelia. In his imagination he creates a vision of this reunion; he imagines what it would be like to ask for her forgiveness and become a good father to her. He also feels helpless as he is conscious that his desire might not be realised. At this point, Lear is suffering terribly, to the point of madness. Eventually, a meeting between Lear and Cordelia does take place. Cordelia is married to the king of France, who plans the invasion of England. She arrives in England as the leader of the French troops. She finds her father. She asks for the doctors help to cure Lears madness, and at the same time prepares to the battle with the armies of her sisters. Lear recovers from his madness sufficiently to recognize Cordelia and they are both reunited: she weeps and he asks for forgiveness. Their joy at the reunion, however, is shortlived. The French army is defeated by the English and both Cordelia and Lear, are taken to prison. The prison reality does not worry Lear; he sees it as an opportunity for Cordelia to experience his fatherly love. Cordelia, however, is more realistic; she knows that a blissful prison existence will never be more than a fantasy. She is right. Shortly after, she is hanged, according to the instructions of the elder son of Gloucester. This devastates Lear; he is in a deep sorrow lamenting over his lifeless daughter, knowing that she will never return to him. In his despair the king dies too. Although the end of the play is tragic and although there is no real comfort, there is peace, and there is a sense that in this final short stage of his life when he and his beloved daughter are reunited, Lear experiences a moral equilibrium. For the first time in the play Lear appears to the readers as morally mature. This story is a powerful example of how, in the midst of messy human existence, when moral failure exceeds moral success, there is a place for growth. Throughout most of the play, Lears situation is a moral catastrophe a catastrophe that is most visible in the love test to which he puts his three daughters and, especially, in the way he treats Cordelia. Although we cannot have a detailed picture of Lears moral history, we can perhaps think that his pre-failure life was not totally morally wrong. Cordelia with her deep moral insight and love, as well as Kent with his loyal service, suggest that Lear was not a total failure but we have no reason to believe that he was a morally mature either. Perhaps Lears intention to divide the kingdom into equal parts and letting, initially, each daughter have one part (even though Cordelia was going to get the best part as she, according to the king, was the most deserving), signifies that, at least at the very outset, he had a fair approach to his heirs. Nevertheless, the events of the play unfold in such a way that what we witness in the love test and soon afterwards are signs of Lears moral deterioration which when he is on exile, able to reflect and come to terms with himself, turns to something more positive, even morally successful. We shall return to this last point shortly. First, however, we will turn to the story of King David and will look for any parallels between his and Lears moral situation. In particular we will be interested in what triggers the moral transformation in both characters. King David The story of David and Bathsheba (presented in 2 Samuel 11-12) tells us how David falls for a beautiful woman Bathsheba who is bathing and whom he spots from a distance (the roof of his house). David discovers that the woman is the wife of a soldier, Uriah the Hittite, who serves in Davids army. He sends messengers to her who order her to visit David. David sleeps with her and she conceives a child by him. When David finds out that Bathsheba is pregnant he commands Uriah to return from the battle in order to allow him to sleep with his wife so that Davids adultery may be covered up. Uriah who is a loyal soldier refuses to return to the comforts of his home (as a sign of solidarity with his fellow soldiers who are in danger) and chooses to sleep with the servants at the kings door. In order to resolve the moral mess which he himself created,

David sends Uriah to the most dangerous part of the battle to be allowed to die there. Uriah carries a letter written by David to the kings army general Joab. The letter, in effect, condemns Uriah to death. Uriah dies on the battlefield. David then marries Bathsheba but their child subsequently dies. As the events escalate, our moral outrage with Davids behaviour grows. David, as set out in this story, seems to be blind to the existence of moral boundaries. His moral self-understanding as well as other-understanding are primitive: his manipulative techniques through which he uses others and abuses his power are morally messy. He doesnt respect the marital state of Bathsheba nor of her husband who is his faithful soldier; he betrays him. He cares more about his moral exteriority than about his inner moral state. He stages the events in order to keep the former while he is inactive regarding the latter. But, according to the story, David eventually comes to realise his immoral state and comes to terms with his failures. The moral breakthrough takes place just before the death of his and Bathshebas child. An important imaginative engagement takes place through a parable related by the prophet Nathan. The parable is about two men, one rich who owned many flocks and herds, the other poor who had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. He brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children; it used to eat of his meagre fare, and drink from his cup, and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him (2 Sam 12:3 (NRSV)). When a traveller arrived, the rich man did not serve him with one of his own lambs, but took the poor mans lamb, and served it to the traveller. We learn that Davids anger was greatly kindled against the man. He said to Nathan, As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die; he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity. Nathan said to David: You are the man! (2 Sam 12:5-6 (NRSV)). This scene with the prophet Nathan is an example of how verbal images ( ekphrasis) in the story can influence the reader or the listener in Davids opening up to goodness. He, of course, can choose to ignore the message or simply look at the parable as a moving narrative without making any connection with himself. But, thanks to Nathan, he does make the link: his analogical imagination13 is at work when he relates the action of the rich man to his own behaviour. He sees that pity is what was lacking in the rich man and pity is what is what is lacking in himself. The parallel is clear to us who are dispassionate observers but it might not have been immediately clear to David. Nathan spells out the link and he does so poignantly and directly: you are the man. The power of the overall story for us is one thing and the power of the story within the story is another - the pedagogical value of fostering moral understanding through stories cannot be better expressed. But, what does happen when David connects his moral state with the message conveyed to him by Nathan? He is no longer a dispassionate observer. He becomes an extension of the character from the parable. We dont know what happens to the rich man in the parable but we know what happens to David. He repents, comforts Bathsheba and eventually succeeds in a moral sense. Aspects of moral failure common to the two narratives What do the stories of King Lear and King David tell us about the nature of moral failure? First, human beings are never immune to moral failure. Moral failure can happen at any time; it is not dependent on age (Lear is a retired king; David seems to be in his prime). Secondly, although moral failure is a personal failure it is only I who fail, others cannot fail on my behalf
13

I understand analogical imagination as an ability to relate an explicit idea or statement of one thing in reference to another.

 it affects other people with whom we share our relational life. The failures of Lear and David affected their own lives (they caused suffering and despair to themselves) and the lives of those who were close to them (Lears daughters; Davids soldier Uriah and his wife Bathsheba). Thirdly, there are various degrees of moral failure, affecting different spheres of our life (intimate, professional, social and so on). Fourthly, moral failure can be used positively and can (in the end) make us grow in the moral sense. In order to understand this last point (which is the focus of this essay) fruitfully we will look more closely at each stage of the moral failure reality. Pre-moral failure reality When does moral failure happen? It seems that it happens when we do not deal well with the demands of our relational life (relationship with others including those who are close, to us, but also those who are more distant). The root of Lears failure seems to lie in his holding on to power and being totally preoccupied with himself. Lear appears as someone who cannot accept any sign of disapproval. His self-centredness makes him unable to distinguish between the genuine love of Cordelia and the superficial love of Goneril and Regan. The root of Davids moral failure seems to lie in his preoccupation with his own desires (especially, sexual desires, but, also, a desire to possess what is not his own: a wife of another man, in this case, his faithful soldier), and his lack of pity (as in presented in his first reaction to the parable related to him by Nathan). Another root could be Davids abuse of power, and, linked to this abuse, his inability to maintain the right relationships with those who were in his care (his kingdom). These stories also illustrate that even if in the pre-failure reality, at one level, we may appear to be more or less successful (kings running kingdoms, winning wars, etc), at another level (when it comes to close relationships such as the father-daughter or a husband-wife relationship) we are vulnerable; there can be parts of us (unresolved issues of the past, lack of love, etc) which when activated can lead to a moral disaster. Or, perhaps these vulnerable parts when exposed lead to moral disaster so that they can get healed and become stronger? Moral failure reality Both stories tell us that moral failure happens when there is ingratitude, lack of sensitivity to others and, most of all, when we want to satisfy our own physical, psychological and material desires at the cost of other people; when we are prepared to skillfully manipulate others (Edmund, Goneril and Regan in King Lear and David manipulating Uriah and attempting to play a game with Nathan). There are two ways of dealing with moral failure: we can either remain unaware of or unwilling to bring to consciousness the fact that something destructive is going on within us (and through us affecting the lives of others) or we can desire to overcome this destruction, try to rebuild our moral self and repair the damage we have caused to others. How we arrive at the second position (desire to change and repair) is in a way a mystery. According to the two narratives, in order to repair the damage done to others and/or to ourselves, one is required to acknowledge the fact of failure, to work out what went wrong and how it went wrong. The next step is wanting to change this point is powerfully portrayed in King Lear during Lears time in the hovel. We can feel Lears desire to reconcile with Cordelia, to see her and ask for her forgiveness. The process of the realization of moral failure can be spread over a long period of time. We are lucky if we wake up quickly but even then there is always a necessity to withdraw to some sort of exile for thinking things through. The waking up from failure to growth takes time; it requires space for solitude; it involves pain. This is what we call repentance. The stories highlight the important role of the moral guide in the process of coming to terms with ones moral mess. The wise other seems to be indispensable in our potential awaking; their words can be like a torch or a mirror in which we are invited to see ourselves as we really are. Both King Lear and King David, reluctantly at first, chose to open up to the message of the wise other: Lear was

helped by his servant Kent, David by Prophet Nathan. However long it takes to become aware, what seems to matter is that we do not approve of our moral state: both Lear and David were shocked by what they have done to others; both desired amendment and each of them underwent a powerful transformation. These stories are a powerful example of how, in the midst of messy human existence, when moral failure exceeds moral success, there is a place for growth. Post-moral failure reality Zoe Bennett in her paper Creation Made Image and Image Made Word14 makes a very useful distinction between eye-sight and heart-sight (or sight and insight). To understand the human condition, Bennett implies, one has to have both: providing the eyesight is clear there is a correlation between what is seen and what is the truth. 15 It seems, according to Bennett, clarity here is about gathering information, comprehending facts, and other reason-based activities. Lear and David initially see with their (half closed perhaps) eyes only, not noticing all that is required for construing an account of the good; their vision is marked by egoism. It is only when they are able to formulate a more honest and less ego-centered account of themselves and gain greater clarity about themselves, they are able to feel what is really going on in their hearts. Initially, they look for physical pleasures and comfort; later on they begin to notice with their hearts; the latter takes place when they instigate to make connections between the stories of those whom they harmed and their own stories. Lear when in the hovel opens up his heart to view Cordelia in a true way as a loving daughter and not as the one who failed his test of love; David makes the connection between the rich mans story and his own life. Until these two ways of seeing (clear eye-sight and heart-sight) merge and become what I call a moral seeing, the openness to goodness or transformation cannot take place. The leap from mind to heart (beginning to see the good and feeling it), from mental recognition to heart acceptance and then from heart acceptance to decision-making and action is a process which, at each stage, involves imagination. Through his encounter with Nathan David begins to practice his moral imagination and lives out what he sees. The emotions, evoked by Nathans parable are cognitively important here. The visual representations in words describing the character of the poor man in the parable are exceptionally rich and emotionally charged: he had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought; the lamb grew up with him and with his children, eat of his meagre fare and drink from his cup and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him (2 Sam 12:3 (NRSV)). In this short verbal description we have a whole life story of this poor and good man. It is probably this insight into the goodness of the poor man and the lack of goodness in the rich man, together with Nathans sharp words, which enable David to find the truth about himself. Theologically, one can describe this moment as an encounter with grace which initiates conversion and a true-heart-sight. Both Lear and David eventually achieved the heart-sight; they moved beyond their egoistic tendencies; their moral outlooks changed and their openness to goodness took place. It seems that in the process of moral seeing the connection between the eye-sight and heart-sight is very intimate even if the two ways of seeing are distinct. Moral seeing involves listening, noticing, paying attention to what is presented by a prophet, a moral guide, a friend, a writer or anyone who has wisdom. It is about forming mental images, images charged with emotions which speak to reason and which eventually have the potential to speak to the heart. Good literature, as we have noted in these two stories, can provide us with an opportunity to glimpse the meaning of moral seeing.

14

See Zoe Bennett, Creation Made Image and Image Made World: John Ruskin on J.M.W Turners Snow Storm, in Daria Pezzoli-Olgiati and Christopher Rowland, Approaches to the Visual in Religion (Research in Contemporary Religion) Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011, pp.249-260 15 Ibid, p.255.

Moral failure can be a heart-opening experience. It can lead to a kind of awakening that would have never happened if one had not failed morally. Moral failure is not desirable. It should not be understood as something that one ought to experience in order to grow. We cannot and should not plan to fail morally. We can only realize its potential for growth in post-failure reality. As we have seen in the two stories, we learn about our failure after we have failed. Hence moral failure and moral growth are realities of different kinds. Moral growth, being conscious, is the subject of planning, deliberation and reasoned behaviour. Moral failure is largely (though not completely and not always) a subject of unconsciousness. We cannot fully, if at all, predict our moral failure. And even if we can, we do not know what its reality is until we experience it. The moment we realize that we have failed is the moment of an invitation to a potential growth. Overcoming moral failure is a painful experience; a true realization of ones fault and of the suffering caused to others naturally brings trauma (or even madness as in the case of Lear) to the one who has caused it. Overcoming moral failure requires patience, perseverance and openness to learn new skills so that the process of rebuilding the damage can take place. Only then can moral failure be seen as a powerful engine for future growth. Moreover, growth that follows moral failure is perhaps more profound that would have been the case if failure had not occurred. Literature, virtue ethics and developmental moral psychology: an attempt to formulate an account of moral growth-through-failure In this final section we shall attempt to translate the above analysis into the language of virtue ethics and developmental moral psychology in order to propose a framework for thinking constructively about the idea of growth-through-moral-failure. The space here does not permit for presenting each theory. So, we shall briefly summarize the main contribution of the two discourses to the understanding of moral success. According to moral developmental psychology, moral success is conditioned by a proper functioning of the self. The self is always seen as the self-in-relationship (to the other, close and distant one, and to oneself). Different theories emphasize with different degrees the importance of certain types of relationships. Laurence Kohlberg in his theory of moral development emphasizes the importance of impartiality and justice and the need to foster good relationship with others who are not intimately close to us (he considers wider relationality which goes beyond family bonds, friendship, etc) so that society as a whole (and we as part of it) can function well and smoothly. Carol Gilligan is concerned with care and responsibility in personal relationships. According to her, only when we attend properly to the needs of those who are close to us as well as attend to our own needs (both types of needs are of equal importance) we can become morally mature. Erik Erikson views moral success in terms of successful resolving various life crises so that one can reach integrity which, according to him, is the highest quality in ones life cycle. Eriksons theory, unlike the theories of Kohlberg and Gilligan which aim to describe the development of moral cognition), is concerned with the ego-development, understood as taking place in a multi-relational context. For Erikson, successful moral growth involves a movement from self-absorption to self-transcendence. It can be said that moral development, in the context of the moral developmental theories, is a process of expanding self-awareness and becoming more skilful in our relationality with others. Moral success is about skilful living of our relational lives and meeting the demands of different kinds of relationships in which we are imbedded. Moral failure then is a breakdown in meeting relational demands. In the case of king Lear it was the breakdown in the relationship with Cordelia; in the case of king David it the relationship with Bathsheba and Uriah which incurred the breakdown.

Virtue ethics, unlike developmental moral psychology, does not operate with the developmental terminology, but it too stresses the importance of skilful living, but skilful living is realized through the practice of virtue(s). Virtue refers to the human disposition that involves the judgment of intellect, leads to right action and directs towards the attainment of good or flourishing life. Virtue ethics focuses on the individual virtues (such as prudence, justice, temperance, courage) that are essential for moral growth which characterize a well-developed human being. It stresses that the acquisition of these virtues takes place through participation in practices. This insight of virtue ethics complements the deficiency of some psychological accounts such as Kohlbergs and Gilligans whose theories measure moral thinking in terms of resolving hypothetical rather than actual moral dilemmas. These approaches presume a rather straightforward, simplistic or even mechanical link between mind and action (our plans to be, lets say, courageous or loving dont always result in courageous or loving acts). Participation in virtuous practices, according to virtue ethics, is not simply mechanical motion, but it is purposeful and chosen doing. In line with this understanding, moral failure is the result of a malfunctioning of the self in the sense that ones actions are not in line with the vision of good life or the vision of good life is distorted in the first place. Moral failure takes place when we lack the essential virtues. Both kings seemed to have some virtues (or seeds of potential virtues) but they lacked love. Lear also lacked justice while David seemed to lack temperance and prudence. Although neither discipline can tell us what growth through moral failure means, the stories we have considered here help us establish that moral failure can be a kind of awaking experience that changes our perception of ourselves, others and the world. It is often more intense than the reality of gradual progress (as presented in stage based theories of moral development), which excludes moral failure. Progress through moral failure seems to be a deeper reality; it can make us more realistic and more aware of the state of our moral affairs. Moral failure can open us up more powerfully to the meaning of human life. Having been on the other side of reality, we get a first hand experience and our understanding of the area of life where moral failure has taken place is perhaps much greater than would have been the case if we had not failed. Without his failure King Lear would have never experienced the power of forgiveness and the joy of true reconciliation with his beloved daughter, neither would he have known the power of reconnecting with his own moral self. Similarly, without coming to terms with his failure, King David would have never experienced the power of pity and seeing the other as truly equal to him; and, given that Jesus is a descendant of David, could it perhaps be said that without Davids failure the history of salvation in the Christian Tradition would have been different. Moral growth, especially according to developmental psychology, is viewed in terms of progress. Bringing in the concept of moral failure into the patterns of growth does not cancel out the overall progressive movement. Growth is a series of movements that do not have to be straightforward but can involve irregularity, brokenness and regress. Even if moral failure is an obstacle to a regular pattern of growth, it can still be incorporated within the structure of moral development. Conclusion The two literary narratives we have considered provide us with a useful set of insights into the dynamics of growth-through-moral-failure. We have not exhausted the topic. We could have approached it differently; for example, we could have offered a more detailed analysis of one of the narratives and applied a single approach from within moral developmental psychology or

10

philosophy to test our ideas. This would have perhaps added a more depth into this study. Instead, we chose a broad and multi-disciplinary approach in order to show how ethics, supplemented by insights from another discourse (developmental moral psychology), can be further enriched by the works of literature. We read these stories with our ethical concerns, namely our interest in moral failure as means to the realization of ones moral potential. None of the ethical theories available to us seems to capture as powerfully and holistically as the literary narratives do the message that moral failure is not necessarily fatal. Moral failure does not determine who we are and who we can become; in fact sometimes, as the stories of King Lead and King David show, we can succeed in moral life thanks to moral failure. Our investigation of these stories leads us to propose that any proper account of moral growth has to go further than structural descriptions and propositions of predictable outcomes of stages as often presented in moral developmental theories. This does not mean that a structural approach to moral growth is not useful. On the contrary, it is valuable (but only in an instrumental sense) as a kind of a map which can help us to situate a person. A constructively perceived moral growth must give a proper place to the issue of moral failure as growth-furthering experience in the way the two literary narratives conveyed. So, in order to capture attentively the meanings of concepts such as the one we studied here, ethics has to stretch its disciplinary boundaries and open up whole heartedly to the interdisciplinary engagements such as the one we advocated here.

11