This may be a subtle point to pick on, but perhaps I'm in a subtle kind of mood. Taylor opens this chapter wrapping up his discussion on sloth claiming that "the wholly slothful are unique amont the vicious here selected in that they abdicate agency altogether." Essentially the claim is that the slothful are alone among the vicious in their laziness and "kill that which makes a person a person". I wonder if the slothful are truly alone in this, however. The claim is that the possessors of other vices do have aims in which they wish to pursue, which differentiates them from the slothful. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall Taylor arguing that the slothful may also have aims in which they theoretically wish to pursue. They just do not find them worth the effort.
I bring all this up because I wonder if the miserly avaricious join the slothful in the "deadliness" of their condition. The miserly avaricious are clearly different from the fully slothful in that they must do at least something to gain their wealth or possessions that they hoard. This may require some form of work, which the slothful would not consider worthwhile. However, as is argued in the chapter, the point of wealth is its ability to purchase things. The non-viscious accumulate wealth in order to achieve security, possessions, and other goods. However, the miser simply gains wealth in order to hoard it and feel as if they have the ability to have power. They find the power in the hoard and are afraid if they spend it they will not have the potential for power. Taylor argues that "the miser means to take no risk whatsoever". I do not argue the the miserly avaricious are lazy and slothful. They must do something to gain their wealth. However, I find that perhaps the miser also suffers from a vice that "kills what makes a person a person". They too seem to abdicate some agency. Although they put the work in to gain the potential to be a person, to live a life, they do nothing with that wealth. They fear losing a sense of power that they never actually gain, and thus end up living no life at all. So long as they hoard their wealth instead of using it for it's purpose, they end up doing nothing at all. Taylor claims that "the misers' situation is such that they will live in a claustrophobic world from within which the outside world will appear a hostile and threatening place". If this is the case, if the outside world is hostile and threatening, the miser will not allow himself to truly live in the outside world. The miser will confine himself to his claustrophobic world with his hoard of wealth and not truly flourish. So long as the miser feels threatened by the outside world, he will continue to hoard his wealth with the mindset that he is protecting himself, when in actuality he is preventing himself from becoming what makes a person a person. Thus, while Taylor claims that the slothful are unique in their abdication of agency, I find that the miserly avaricious are vicious in a similar fashion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is irrelevant for the case of the paradigmatically avaricious because there we are assuming a life wholly consumed by the quest for accumulated wealth, but I think Taylor is wrong that "taking no risks" and not using wealth for its purpose necessarily deprives the self and others. Suppose someone acquires money beyond what she needs to reasonably support her family and never spends it. She is comforted by the thought that there is money saved in case anything happens to her family, but there are no concrete plans to spend the money. This person hopes that the money is not spent during her lifetime and instead is donated to charity when she dies. Here it seems likely more people will be benefited when this person dies as a result of her actions than if she spent the money needlessly, and it is not necessary that she is harmed during her lifetime for not spending the money. To suppose not spending money prevents flourishing assumes that all social interactions and desires have to do with the types of things that can be acquired with money beyond the satisfaction of basic needs, which I do not think must be the case. So I disagree that wealth is what gives someone the potential to be a person and live a life, and think it is irrelevant to flourishing whether someone spends money beyond meeting basic needs or saves it without intentions of spending it.
Post a Comment