In 2009, Peter Singer and John Hare discussed the basis for morality at The Veritas Forum at MIT: http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/10. Singer and Hare agreed that the moral life imposes such high demands that all people fall short. But what do we do when we fail? Singer argued for a lower public standard and for trying again. Hare, by contrast, maintained the high demand and argued that we need forgiveness and power in order to live the moral life, claiming that Jesus provides a source of this forgiveness and power.

Do you agree with Singer and Hare that the moral life is demanding? And how should we react when we fail to live up to it? What resources do we have for living the moral life?

This was a truly splendid debate, one I strongly recommend to any who have not yet found the time to watch it.

I believe that any reasonable look at society will reveal that personal ethics are expected to be more demanding than public policy. Whether or not one agrees with this practice, it does indeed seem to be that we do not (and probably cannot) force our highest ideals onto others via legal action. Nor, in my view, should we. I felt that this point of Professor Singer’s was an interesting aside, but does not address the issue of moral failure. Nor, if I understood him correctly, did he intend it in this manner. The matter of ethics should not be treated synonymously with legality.
Where I clearly disagree with Singer, however, in the remainder of his response. I empathized a great deal with the concept of realizing that one isn’t perfect, and to focus instead on personal improvement, rather than perfect adherence. I could not, however, agree that this answers the problem. It is sufficient, of course, for most situations in which we encounter regularly, so long as one is not viscerally attached to the idea of moral perfection (as I feel one should be). What it is not, however, is an adequate resource for times of deep moral failure.
Taking as a premise that we all experience moments of deep moral failure, and that those who strive most fervently to be moral have more and deeper experiences of this sort than most, then emphasizing growth and continuing to try is ultimately ineffective. In such times, thoughts of improvement and simple exhortations to try again don’t speak to the fact that no finite number of trials (and perhaps not even an infinite number) will result in success in reaching one’s moral ideal. It seems that, from the secular perspective, giving up any deep commitment to such an achievement is the only option.
Taking God’s existence as a premise does indeed alter the matter drastically. First, it gives us the resource of forgiveness, which does speak to guilt - as evidenced by any number of experiences, both internal and external to religion.
As to the power Professor Hare mentions, I believe that is not simply the fact that we are not given more than we can handle. This is very significant, of course, but I would add something even more basic to Christianity: In the Gospel, our needs of fulfillment are met. We are given forgiveness, and imbued with divine worth. Counter-intuitive as it may be, this strikes me as a far better motivator for ethical behavior than a seeking of fulfillment through such actions. It motivates through gratitude, rather than self-interest. It therefore removes the sense of consumerism, in which a person is ethical insofar as the emotional payoff is sufficient. It corrodes, rather than reinforces, a sense of superiority toward others. In divorcing ethical behavior from the search for an emotional reward, it allows altruism to take a deeper and more central place within our selves.