Vice/Virtue Ratio and Excessive Virtue

Taylor it seems argues a kind of an inverse ration for vices compared to virtues. She says that vices are important to lead to a flourishing life because one must understand what causes a destructive life in order to avoid it. She says, “the relation between agent, virtue, and benefit or flourishing is paralleled by the relation between agent, vice and harm or destruction” (Taylor 3). But later on in the first chapter she goes on to say how excessiveness of a virtue can also lead to harm. She uses the example of an overly generous woman who gives much more than her means and ends up hurting herself and those who depend on her in the process. But if Taylor wants to make that claim, then the same must apply to the opposite of the vice/virtue equation she established earlier. If too much of a virtue is a bad thing then too much of a vice must be a good thing based on her concepts. This might seem silly or just wrong to apply to a person at first. If an individual leads a life of excessive gluttony or envy than how can this person lead a flourishing life. But the existence of such a person might help others realize the harm in such vices and help them reach a flourishing life by example. Taylor does hint a bit at the necessity of vice for the existence of virtue. It goes along with the concept, “evil needs to exist in order for the existence of good.” But then again, the same can apply to an excessively generous person. The woman who is overly generous also sets an example for others not to do the same. Maybe excessive vices can lead to a flourishing life because a person who completely immerses him or herself in vice reaches the pleasure in such vices. But that defeats the purpose of the definition of a vice because then a small amount of that vice could also possibly lead to pressure. I’m not sure how (if at all) excessive vice could lead to a flourishing life, but based on Taylor’s vice/virtue ratio and her ideas on excessive virtue I feel that it should in some way.