Taylor states that a vice is having “a share of its excess means being at least at the threshold of some potentially harmful state of ignorance and confusion” (Taylor 12). This limits the definition of vices. Suppose there is a case when an individual does something they know is wrong. There is neither confusion nor ignorance and this is not a rare case, in fact it happens on a regular basis. Taylor also mentions a lack of balance and self control over their feelings. Take the case of someone who is generally a nice person, however is slightly greedy. Greedy to the extent where he would steal, but only a little bit at a time as not get caught. We can see that there is control over the feelings otherwise he would steal as much as he could. The vice is kept under control stealing small amounts at a time. It does not grow nor become any more prominent. Simply put, the vice is not in excess. And so, Taylor would not consider this a vice.
Taylor believes that vices will be counteracted by other traits and rendered harmless. Thus, this is the reason why vices must be in excess. I don’t believe this to be the case; it is even worse to act viciously even though you understand it to be wrong. There are many instances where control, balance, ignorance, and confusion are not extreme problems of vices but are not counteracted by other traits. For instances, grudges, generally, no action is taken so they are in control of their emotions. It is understood why the grudge is being held. But grudges are not counteracted by other traits, and grudges are generally found to be not very virtuous. In sum, vices are not at the threshold of some potentially harmful state of ignorance and confusion, in fact vices are understood and under control, but nevertheless is committed.
2 comments:
I disagree. In fact i believe this to be Taylors definition of a vice. in Chapter 2 she states "a long term, well established perspective on life." could mean a vice. If a person knew that stealing was wrong and did it anyway, the measure of what is being stolen is irrelevent. What matters is that a part of their character causes them to ahve the recurring feelings of greed which causes them to steal. The fact that they can manage their behavior does not make them not vicious but rather a calculating vicious person.
It would be like saying that a person who built up hate over a long period of time decided to let go of it by killing a random person once their wrath became too great to bear. The fact remains that they are the kind of person who needs to submit to their own vices.
I believe that Taylor's assumption of confusion and ignorance causing vice is spot on. She does not say that an agent must be unaware of their vice, but rather that the habituation of their vice comes from confusion or ignorance.
One who has ingrained in them the urge to steal may be conscious of it at some point. But, they were ignorant to the fact that their actions were vices when they began exhibiting the vice or they had been taught incorrect lessons and were confused as to the err in their ways.
The issue that seemingly arises from vices and virtues is the long-standing emotional state that these two concepts necessitate. The display of a virtue or vice is not an isolated incident in an agent's life, but rather a display of their deeply ingrained beliefs, and these beliefs have been molded and affects throughout their lives. The conscious aspect of vice is only one adaptation to a habitual vice and most likely is rooted in a sense of ignorance or confusion.
Post a Comment