Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Sloth, a vice?
Taylor’s objective framework states “individual agents want to flourish in life to have a rich and happy rather than a narrow, miserable one.” She says this is a minimal assumption. However, it bothers me that she assumes we all want to be happy and rich. However, we all subjectively determine what makes us individually happy. If we are free to determine what makes happy than we can be narrow and miserable if we want, that should be acceptable. Take for example hermits, they have excluded themselves from the world saying the world is not worth engaging with. Sloth according to Taylor is the outlook on life, such that the world is not worth engaging with, or an agent is not prepared to make the effort necessary for engagement. Hermits’ lives are not incompatible with positive feelings. Their emotional life is not impoverished. And so, is sloth a vice? No, it is not according to Taylor’s definition. The hermit is still flourishing. Each individual person has their own mental, physical, and emotional capabilities. These will grow with age, but it is certainly the case that women tend to more emotional than men, the mentally handicap cannot function at the same level as normal humans. And so, what would be a rich and happy life for one of these individuals is not necessarily the same as another. Not engaging with the world is a way to flourish in life, there are many more ways to flourish in life than Taylor’s limited scope. Her use of examples and explanations focus too much on agents not prepared to make the effort necessary for engagement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
“Individual agents want to flourish in life to have a rich and happy rather than a narrow, miserable one,” (Taylor). Whereas Julie considers this a faulty assumption, I think Taylor is correct in calling it only a “minimal” one. First of all, I doubt Taylor means “rich” in a financial sense, but rather means a bountiful life, one abundant in joy.
Julie claims that a subjective view of happiness (which Taylor grants us) allows one to prefer a narrow, miserable existence over a happy one. But you can’t really take seriously anyone’s claim that they “want to be miserable.” To admit to wanting something is to admit that you can be made happy. If you want to be miserable, you will become satisfied as soon as you are miserable. At that point you will no longer be miserable. This is an impossible paradox; no one, therefore, can really “want to be miserable.” For these reasons, I think it would be exceedingly difficult to find an agent who does not want to have a happy life.
To elaborate on Julie’s example, hermits do not want to miserable. I don’t think Julie directly intended to say they do, but she implied it by writing “…we can be narrow and miserable if we want, that should be acceptable. Take for example hermits....” Nor are hermits slothful by any definition. Taylor writes that slothfulness is the state of not engaging the world, but hermits do engage the world, just not via other people. They are active with their mind, engaging ideas through books and active thought. Perhaps they live in the woods and study the trees and wildlife. They may observe the stars or patterns in weather. Or they may seek spiritual wisdom and awareness. All of these are examples of engaging with the world.
Julie is right that there are multiple ways flourishing, but I’m not sure she’s proven one may flourish without engaging the world.
Post a Comment