I'm in the mood to be picky again. The bottom of page 122 and the top of page 123 discuss violent reactions to attacks on one's status and way of life. Taylor discusses why a number of vicious types would have violent reactions to such attacks, but then goes on to explain that these violent reactions are not confined to the vicious. It is this that I find suspect. Wouldn't a violent reaction to an attack of life or character signify some sort of vice? Could a non-vicious person have a violent reaction? If one only considers the vices Taylor notes and in the extreme degrees she describes them in, then perhaps a "non-vicious" person could have a violent reaction. However, I believe we describe a vice as a character trait that prevents one from flourishing. These traits do not need to be as extreme as Taylor describes them, and one may exemplify multiple vices. Further, there are additional vices besides the ones Taylor describes. Rather than considering her vices then, let us consider a violent reaction to an attack of character and way of life.
In discussing anger, it was noted that there are times when being angry is warranted and not considered vicious. In the case of a character defamation of one who has a virtuous character, I could see how an angered response may be warranted. If one is confident in one's way of life and character, but people are insulting one or the other, anger may be called for. However, violence? It seems that a violent reaction goes beyond virtuous anger. Violence seems that it would be the result of some sort of characteristic that would prevent one from flourishing. Violence cannot itself be a vice as it is not quite a character trait so much as an action, but violence is rather the result of different traits.
This isn't a highly thought through idea, but it seems to me that blameworthy actions that cause harm to another are all results of some sort of vicious trait. I guess that's just my idea of a flourishing life though. Perhaps Taylor survives this problem I see because there could be subjective accounts of a flourishing life that allow for violence. However, I still find that while anger may be justified, violent reponses seem to be due to vicious traits.
1 comment:
I would have to agree with Christa, it does seem that only the vicious would react violently when one attacks their way of life. I believe as well that a virtuous person would be confident in their chosen life style and when attacked for their chose of life, might as Christa said, have anger, but as a virtuous person they would refrain from violently reacting, because such an action would be un-virtuous.
I commented on this blog in particular because i was in the mood to be picky as well. It seems that Taylor's arguments are getting weaker. For example a little earlier on page 122, Taylor characterizes the slothful as vicious because they are bored and thus would need to entertain themselves, and "excercising power over others may be a relatively amusing way of doing so" and they would thus be cruel.
She gives the example of MR Grandcourt to make her point. But when Taylor characterizes Grandcourt earlier in the chapter she never mentions him to be slothful, and they way he was characterized does not seem at all slothful. The slothful have motivation but are too lazy to put it into action. It seems to me that Grandcourt is motivated by some cruel pleasure, but unlike the slothful he puts this motivation to action by cruely favoring one dog over another. He may be acting cruely and viciously but he fails to be slothful, and thus Taylors argument seems falty in my mind. (This also ties in closely with the post "Sloth as a Capital Vice")
Post a Comment