Is there such a thing as a capital vice? Early in the chapter Taylor defines a capital vice as one which is likely to lead to other vices, yet as the chapter progresses it becomes a different concept. In a way Taylor tries to make a capital vice more specific by searching specifically for either a disposition towards cruelty or brutality in vices. In this attempt she does a lot of far-reaching rationalizing and even uses Oblomov as an example of how someone in the vice of sloth might (and likely will) unintentionally cause injury to someone who cares about him.
All of this leads me to question whether or not a vice is Capital is an important distinction at all. Taylor has made many distinctions thus far: extrinsic and intrinsic- centered vices, brutal and cruel vices, and the distinction between the vices seeking pleasure and those which are wholly-destructive. All of those distinctions seemed to make a big difference in how we looked at those vices; however, this distinction seems a lot weaker. This is in part because she seems to want to show that every vice she talks about is capital in some way. Taylor shouldn’t have pushed so hard to make all the vices seem capital – this would have made the ones that lead directly to other vices seem to be unique in some way. As it stands, Taylor seems to have merely added another universal characteristic of all the vices instead of adding a new distinction; this leads me to think that none of the vices should be called a capital vice – they should all be thought to have this trait instead.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
When Taylor is making the connections between cruelty/brutality and the others vices, she does this to make a point. When using cruelty it is fairly easy to draw the lines between the different vices, how one vices leads to another. She also makes a point to show how some of the other vices are also interconnected. And so, I don’t believe she strays from original definition of capital vices.
I think an important thing to remember is that Taylor is only focusing on a few select vices. She selected these vices because they are capital vices. Other vices, take for example intolerance, might not lead to more vices. And so, this is an important distinction, because vices are much deadlier in this regard. Vices are dangerous to fulfillment, and so having more than one would be that much deadlier. It is deadlier because the self-deception is much greater. In deceiving one’s self about greed, but then also having a misperceived concept about the real world from pride, there is a larger amount of self-deception.
However, if you are trying to argue that having multiple vices is not as dangerous as having one to one’s fulfillment. Then it would be reasonable to assume that capital vices are no more dangerous than any others. Because Taylor cannot say if any vices are more dangerous than another since she has decided upon a subjective view of fulfillment.
You ask whether there’s such a thing as a capital vice, but perhaps the better question is whether there is such a thing as a non-capital vice. The point that Taylor is trying to make is that vices lead to worse vices. Her argument is that, while vices are bad in general, they cause the most harm (especially on others) through a cruelty that is inherent in them. Perhaps you are right that Taylor has merely added a universal trait, but that does not make the chapter useless by any means; rather, it simply adds another important concept to the study of vices.
I also do not think her use of Oblomov is a far-reaching rationalization. Indifference and laziness can indeed cause pain on others. Indifference to the pain of others seems quite cruel to me. The cruelty comes not merely from the pain and suffering caused by Oblomov, but by the fact that he simply does not care about that pain and suffering since he is so self-concerned.
Post a Comment