Although being slothful may be indolent, lazy and bored, I would not consider the slothful to be vicious. Sloth may hinder a person to flourish, and thus by definition make it a vice, but I feel that vices along with preventing a person from flourishing also have to harm the individual. Slothfulness can hardly be seen as harmful, Taylor even claims that small periods of idleness and rest are important and even healthy for a person.
Boredom and laziness may prevent a man from carrying out his daily tasks: he may be too bored to attend his chemistry class; he may even be too lazy to get out of bed in the morning. But these acts can hardly be seen as vicious. They may have negative consequences, but they certainly do not harm him.
Another slothful man lies around all day. He is lazy, indolent, and often times finds himself temporarily bored. He is extremely wealthy and has a loving daughter. He pays others to do his work, cook his food, and clean his house; he even pays for bands to come play at his house to ease his boredom. This man I think Taylor would have to say is vicious for he is clearly slothful. But I do not see this man as possessing a vice. He may not lead the most exciting life and may fail to experience interesting things on his own, but I would say that he is still flourishing and happy, for his family still loves him and visits him.
I feel that vices must also do something negative, such as harm an individual, rather than just preventing the individual from flourishing. Vices seem to be harmful and are often considered sinful, such a strong negative connotation should be reflected in the definition of the word itself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I feel as though your interpretation of Taylor is incorrect. In the description of the slothful man, he clearly is unhappy with his life. To be viciously slothful a person has to make no effort to better themselves. The man you mentioned has a family who gave him satisfaction in his life, rather than a lazy man he is just idle and unable to make himself useful. I would not argue that a man who flourishes in such a way to be viciously slothful.
Were he truly slothful as Taylor describes he would spend his days doing as little as possible and not arranging bands to come play for him. Even his loving daughter would lose interest because of his total lack of drive to do anything. According to taylor one cannot be slothful and maintain relationships, ergo a person with a loving daughter is either not slothful or just temporarily posessing the qualities of a slothful person.
Post a Comment