Abstinence and Moderation

“Abstinence is as easy to me,” said Samuel Johnson, “as temperance would be difficult.” Moderation is a word that has a very acceptable sound, and we might fall into the fallacy of thinking it is the answer to everything. But it isn’t always. Indeed, there isn’t anything that is always the answer to everything. But Samuel Johnson’s short sentence suggests that sometimes it is easier to do something that seems more difficult, than to do something that at first sight seems easier—for it we give up something only partly, there is always the question of when, how much, how far. But is we give it up altogether, this question resolves itself. It isn’t possible to partake of a little of everything and still preserve health—or life. Even a little of some things is too much—sometimes fatal, literally so. Some things are wrong, basically and inherently wrong, and we shouldn’t allow ourselves the right to do wrong—even in moderation. In some situations the mistakes themselves may not be so serious, but rationalizing ourselves into a comfortable complacency could be exceedingly serious. We sometimes hear talk of “tapering off”. It has a tempting sound. But would we recommend tapering off stealing, or many other things that might be mentioned? We cannot expect perfection, but we shouldn’t rationalize the principle. We are stronger and safer if we face facts and not condone error or evil or unhealthful habits—not even in moderation. And if we have a habit that is likely to lead to a wrong result, we could be safer to give it up altogether than to give it up part away. We do ourselves a disservice when we say that a little of everything is all right, when a little of some things is really wrong. In other words, the best way not to do what we shouldn’t do is not to do it. To cite the words of Samuel Johnson: “Abstinence is as easy to me as temperance would be difficult.”