Lust, a vice.
Simon Blackburn says that lust not only has positive aspects, but also that lust is a virtue. This may sound metaphorical or intentionally ironic. Plainly, however, Blackburn means what he says quite literally. He is not speaking of lust as “lust for life,” or as mere eagerness. (*) Blackburn has a forthcoming book on the subject. (†)
Oddly enough, on Google I found a bizarre ritual used by the Church of Satan involving the following chant: “Lust is a virtue which drives men forward! {gong} … Lust is the engine of destruction! {gong} Lust destroys the weak! {gong} Lust exalts the strong! {gong}” (‡) Blackburn is not promoting Satanism. It is interesting, however, to see who agrees with him, and why they do.
Traditionally, lust has been termed a vice. The dictionary definition of lust is simple to understand. Roughly, lust is “an overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power.” (§)
Blackburn’s argument is hardly innovative or uncommon. Lust was argued to be a virtue in an essay by Valentine de Saint-Point published as a leaflet on 11 January 1913. (**) (††)
Essentially, Blackburn’s argument runs like this: desire has many good consequences; as an extension of desire, lust has good consequences as well; therefore, lust is a virtue. The argument is fallacious on numerous grounds. There is no need here to engage this argument on religious grounds.
The first counterargument would be that while we esteem desire, it does not follow that we should esteem lust. The two are different in their levels of intensity. What is good in moderate levels may have negative effects at extreme levels. The advice of Aristotle is “everything in moderation.” The definition of lust is overwhelming desire, or unrestrained desire. Moderate levels of desire are not lust. A moderate level of desire is indicative of restraint. Immoderate, extreme levels of desire are lust. Therefore, the inherent goodness of desire is not a trait of lust. Nevertheless, lust surely has some positive aspects to it. It is based on desire. Having positive aspects does not mean that lust is intrinsically good. That is, it does not mean that lust is a virtue.
Blackburn attempts to evade this point. He admits, “If we associate lust with excess and surfeit, then its case is already lost.” He then asserts that lust need not be associated with excess. In this way he tries to redefine lust as a synonym of desire. What word, then, would Blackburn assign to mean “excessive desire?” I suppose a word could be found or invented, but let not that convenience obscure Blackburn’s trick of language. He has attempted to win the argument by redefining a word. How simple it would be to score debating points if one needed only to announce a change in the definitions at the outset. In Blackburn’s world, lust is good. This is a concept that would fit in well with Huxley’s Brave New World and Orwell’s 1984. It is not accidental, either, that Blackburn’s excerpt, appearing in the left-wing New Statesman is an argument for totalitarianism. For if we may redefine whatever word we liked, we should be left with nothing but Newspeak.
Consider another definition of lust that fits: lust as unrestrained desire. The lack of restraint on desire makes that desire into lust. The lack of restraint turns desire into that which breaches society’s boundaries. This then becomes a question of which of society’s boundaries should be breached and which should not be breached. This then becomes another question, addressed below. What Blackburn argues for, however, is that lust—unrestrained desire—should be praised. This is hedonism and nihilism. It is contrary to every one of our notions of justice and fair play. To attack as harmful every restraint on our appetites is to attack society itself. For society to exist, some of our desires must be kept in check.
On the other hand, if lust is neither excessive desire nor unrestrained desire, then lust is only desire. If lust were only desire, there would be no need to call it lust. We would just call it desire. It would be wholly unremarkable to defend desire in the contemporary West. It is worthy of note that Blackburn defends lust. Yet, Blackburn is defending lust as if it had all the traits of desire, and none of lust.
The second counterargument is that taken to extreme levels, desire may have negative consequences. Megalomania is the excessive desire, or lust, for power. A frequent consequence is tyranny. Lust is often associated with unrestrained sexual desire. A frequent consequence is adultery. The trouble with too much desire is the negative consequences it brings. These negative consequences do not necessarily result from desire, but necessarily must from lust. The negative consequences inherent to it make lust a vice.
There are other counterarguments, but there is no need to list them here.
Blackburn extends his argument into a critique of the repression of sexuality in general and of the United States as a whole. In brief response, I agree that in the past our Western societies have to a degree wrongly repressed sexuality. It is ridiculous to deny married couples access to contraceptives, to state an example that commands wide agreement. On the other hand, some aspects of sexuality should be repressed. In this group I would place bestiality, incest, adultery, fornication, the sexual abuse of children, and necrophilia. I am not considering whether they should be legal. Some should be and some should not. I am considering whether they should be immoral. Those I have listed should. Secondly, as Blackburn observes, the United States is indeed less sexualized than other countries. It is no mistake that the most powerful, freest, and the richest country in the world—the beacon of liberty—is not devoted to sexual lust. In fact, this is key to America’s success.
To the extent it embodies lust, the “sexualization” of society represents a threat to liberty, for lust attacks the architecture of just society. What is proper is to tolerate and praise desire, and to scorn and contemn lust.
In summary, lust has some positive aspects. Lust is desire unrestrained in intensity. Lust has negative consequences that overwhelm the positives. Therefore, lust is a vice. Lust is not worthy of our praise or promotion. It deserves our disparagement.