Fred Cuny Moral Saint

Through all the readings and discussions that we have done in class, I have decided upon the definition of what I believe a moral saint to be. However, unlike others, I also know that I may not be correct in my definition. That having been said, to me a moral saint is somewhere in between what the Wolf piece said and my own thoughts that I have derived both from the discussions in class as well as other readings. The part of the definition that I will borrow from Wolf is a moral saint being a person whose every action is as morally good as possible. The way I read this, which may not be how Wolf intended, is that for someone to be a moral saint they need to do all they can, in their own lives/situations, both practical concerns and moral concerns, make every action as morally good as possible. After all, should one person be condemned as being more of a moral saint than others simply because they have more opportunities to show qualities that people would define as being characteristics of a moral saint? That would not be fair to those with fewer opportunities.

A point also comes up of having two different types of moral saints, the loveable saint and the rational saint. The lovable saint is a person who does actions to help people simply because of that persons love for people. On the other hand a rational saint is someone who does good actions because they realize that someone has to do something to help or people may suffer, die, etc. Looking at the surface of this, one would say that the loveable saint should be held higher. In some cases, I believe this could be correct, however, I believe that it should all come down to intent. Why is someone doing certain actions? If the rational saint is doing things to help themselves and in the process helping others, I believe that to be a down grade when compared to someone who does things simply for the well-being of others.

A moral saint, to me, is someone who's every action is as morally good as possible, with no ill intent, which also can not be derived from moral luck. If someone looks to see whether or not I myself am a moral saint, they might use someone like Fred Cuny to compare my actions to Cunys to see if in fact I am a moral saint. For example, one would look at someone like Fred Cuny, and then me. Clearly Fred Cuny helped far more people than I have. He has also saved more lives than I have and was looked at as a hero for it. The problem with people using someone like Fred Cuny to compare others to, to see if they may be a moral saint is that no one ever looks at the situation of that particular person. I may want to help people far more than Fred Cuny. However, I have a bad back and I am bedridden for the rest of my life and am physically incapable of doing so. Should I not be held as high as Cuny simply because I do not have the moral luck as he does to have the funding, physical abilities, and time to do so. I think that one would be a fool to say that action, not intent, is what decides whether or not a person is a moral saint.

For years, many people have been trying to decide whether or not Fred Cuny should be considered a moral saint. To try to answer this question, one must first learn about the life of Fred Cuny. First, one would need a quick background. Fred Cuny was originally from New Haven, Connecticut, a few years after that he and his family moved to Texas. Throughout Fred's early years, he dreamed of one day being an air force pilot, but a leg injury ended those hopes. Fred went to Texas A&M where he studied engineering. Fred then started the disaster relief