From the parts we have read from Hurka, it seems to me that there always more evil than there is good. He goes on to argue in this chapter on page 157, that evil is necessary for good. He mentions a few objections, but I would like to add my own.
The greater the evil, the stronger the virtue or good that must come to meet it. And so, for evil to win this battle over the world there must continue to be an evil that is greater than the previous good. Because, good and evil are not stagnant nor do they remain the same. Otherwise, the good and evil will have reached its limit. And so there is this perpetual growth of evil and good. I feel as though Hurka would not mind this claim. I think he believes that as long as the balance is maintained between the good and evil, it will be the same world, but the scale is magnified. This seems to be problematic.
Even if it isn’t the case, and that the evil and good remains the same. The machines and weapons created have allowed individuals and countries to cause more damage, for the sake of ending wars. And although there is no more evil in the world, there are new inventions which allow for more pain, and vice. Technology will not end, and the invention for a weapon that will end all wars will not stop. Does pleasure, virtue, rise to meet this challenge? In the wake of 9/11 was there enough good to balance out these evils? The scams that arose, conspiracy theories, the patriot act, charities, and patriotism. Perhaps, Hurka would call me a cynic.
In both cases, it seems that the progression of evil will always continue. However, will the virtues that balance these out continue in intensity? It seems that for every one virtue there seems to be at least three vices which in some way demolish it. Also, with the inclusion of pleasure at a small evil, there exists evil in pleasure. Although, I don’t believe this impacts Hurka’s argument, but I think it should be something that he addresses.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is a very interesting point that you brought up and I would like to take a crack at what Hurka would say in response. I believe Hurka would agree with the claim that some virtues are directly responsive to vice and therefore rely on vice to exist. He would disagree, however, with the idea that vice may someday, somehow, outway virtue. No matter how despicable vice may get, if there is any virtue at all, it must be on an equal plane of the vice otherwise it cacnnot exist. The events of 9/11 introduced a new type of vice to new york city and it was met with the virtue of courage (among other things). When the citizens were faced with this vice, they had to show a level of courage equal to the level of vice, otherwise it could not exist. So with the invention of new vices must come new and equal virtuesdue to the nature of virtue itself.
Post a Comment