It is significant idea of (and of virtue) has been largely superseded in Western moral philosophy by idea of rightness, supported perhaps by some conception of sincerity. This is to some extent a natural outcome of disappearance of a permanent background to human activity; a permanent background, whether provided by God, by Reason, by History, or by self. --Iris Murdoch, The Sovereignty of Good In philosopher and novelist Iris Murdoch's 1970 study of nature of and evil, she poses a series of questions: is a man like? Can we make ourselves morally better? These are questions Murdoch saw as important for philosopher, in particular, to answer, while realizing we know little about truly men. She comments are men in history who are traditionally thought of as having been (Christ, Socrates, certain saints), but if we try to contemplate these men we find information about them is scanty and vague, and that, their great moments apart, it is simplicity and directness of their diction which chiefly colours our conception of them as good (SG 52). Goodness is difficult to find, even if we know what we are looking for. Can we define goodness even in ourselves, she asks? What one would need is a purification and reorientation of energy which is naturally selfish, in such a way when moments of choice arrive we shall be sure of acting rightly (SG 54). For Christian this could be by devoting oneself to prayer, defined not as petition but as an to which is a form of love and effected by grace, [...] a supernatural assistance to human endeavour which overcomes empirical limitations of personality. Because Murdoch, at one time early in her life, was Anglican, then a full atheist, and finally a partial believer in Tibetan Buddhism, practice of prayer to is not a practical one. Murdoch creates her own definition of in this small philosophical work: God was (or is) a single perfect transcendent non-representable and necessarily real object of attention (SG 55). Her moral philosophy is one in which believer holds on to this central concept without believing in a Judeo-Christian God-concept. The religious believer has easier time of it than non-believer who is attempting to reach a purified state, in part because there is object of focus. becomes a powerful source of energy, but one can receive moral energy by focusing on things other than God, even idea of goodness, which Murdoch does not see as denied to non-believer. One can, after all, be without believing in God. That creates a single, supreme value system for humankind she finds unacceptable: should there not be many different kinds of independent moral values? Why should all be one here? (SG 56). Murdoch does not agree Judeo-Christian pattern of moral values is only one matters; rather, matters, or what is considered in culture in which one lives. Her definition of is summed up best in her favorite expression: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Since only proof for existence of is faith, a belief in not harming others would seem to accomplish same thing as religious beliefs. Murdoch suggests the authority of Good seems to us necessary because realism (ability to perceive reality) required for is a kind of intellectual ability to perceive what is true, which is automatically at same time a suppression of self (SG 66). There must be, suggests Murdoch, a substitute for prayer, that most profound and effective of religious techniques One must purify one's attention, one's energy and violence of will, employing not a quasi-religious meditative technique but something which belongs to moral life of ordinary person (SG 69). The idea of contemplation is one in which Murdoch believes modern man can find answer. …