The Extent of Taylor’s Tied Arm
It's important that we talk about how objective Taylor means to be before we move on from Deadly Vices. Often in class a theory or argument is introduced and the counter “that’s not being objective” is introduced, and the theory then falls to the side. I don’t think Taylor meant to be wholly-devoid of objectivity – I will give a recount of the arguments she can use to use objective arguments in a subjective context.
Taylor initially states that she thinks when we need to relate to anyone’s subjective view of what it is to lead a flourishing life. The initial answer to this is that the vices are traits people would not desire if given the choice: they are character traits people have and do not acknowledge. No one would say “I want to act more angrily/lustfully/enviously, etc.” This is the first response Taylor has against subjectivity.
A very important tool that Taylor has is the damage to the self argument. This was really Taylor’s ticket to objectivity while remaining subjective: with this she doesn’t need to rely on truly-objective statements like “vices are bad for you” and she can say “I have defined what a self is, and this vice causes you to not act as a person who engages the real world.” While this move might seem sneaky, it gives Taylor a firm framework for proving most of the vices are harmful to the self.
The last thing I want to bring up is a quote Taylor uses from David Wiggins in chapter 7. According to Wiggins, self-harm is “corruption of the self and the consequent impossibility of leading a flourishing life, sometimes of leading a life at all.” Taylor is using this quote to establish what self-harm looks like, but I think we can apply it as a counter to the vices of lust and gluttony. We will have to say something like ‘the lustful aren’t really leading a life at all if they are constantly in search of new partners,’ or ‘the lustful aren’t flourishing by replacing partners constantly, because repeating step 1 of a relationship can’t be seen as flourishing on any view of life.’
In conclusion, I think that Taylor has to employ semi-objective statements. As long as she uses some framework she has established there shouldn't be any huge problems. The fact that she relies on self-deception to get a point across often is proof enough that entirely subjective arguments are not enough to prove the vices are damaging to a person.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree with you that Taylor has to, or at least, is greatly aided in, employing "semi-objective" standards. A wholly relativist philosophy, one that has neither good nor bad, but merely different opinions and points of view, would probably be a rather boring philosophy, and one in which you basically couldn't argue anything. One cannot have virtues and vices if one does not have any standard by which to call any character trait a virtue or a vice.
One thing you don't really mention, but that I do think deserves mention before we move on, is that I think Taylor does a great job of getting rid of the clutter of philosophy and getting right down to the issues. By focusing on extreme cases she makes her book both more concise and more readable. Others have argued that she makes her parameters so exact and her work so concise that it's hard to argue with her, but, as someone who has taken plenty of courses where he has to read 50-200 pages per class, I can say that I greatly appreciate the fact that she made her work so concise. Not only does it give me more free time, but by focusing on extreme cases and exact parameters I think she has made it a lot easier to understand her arguments, and I do think that there is something for all of us to learn in her examples, even if we don't know anyone who quite reaches the extreme levels of vice that her examples reach.
Post a Comment