Hurka supports the view (CP): The degree of intrinsic goodness or evil of an attitude to x is always less than the degree of goodness or evil of x. He favors this view over that of lexical view which states that virtue or vice outweighs even the greatest quantity of any non-moral value. He goes on to explain some of the difficult implications of the comparative principle, but concludes that even with these difficulties, the view (CP) should not be abandoned. One implication which really worries me, was the implication that giving a gift, which one spent hours and time finding because one thought the recipient would love it, does not have more value than the pleasure it produces. According to Hurka's view, it's "the gift that counts." This worries me, for it not only is counterintuitive, it seems to remove all sentimental value from giving gifts.
Hurka adopted this view, even with all the difficulties the theory faces. I think it would be much simpler if he were, instead, to include virtue as a base good and vice as a base evil. This would seem to remove all awkward implications of the comparative principle but still show the relation of virtue and vice with other goods and evils.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree that (CP) has its hitches, but are they the ones you note? You worry that one who spent hours on a gift cannot have more value than the pleasure it produces. I suppose you mean by this that virtue theory should have it so thoughtfulness and effort for someone can produce more good than the pleasure it causes the recipient. However, it seems that Hurka wanted this to be able to be the case as well. I do not remember at present if he ended up having to give that up given his theory, but he did at least see the attractiveness of a theory that could say that.
In addition, again I may be wrong about this, but it seems that Hurka does include virtue within the list of base goods and vice within the list of base evils. That is how higher order virtues and vices are able to work. The reason loving the love of a good is itself a good is because the love of a good is itself a base good. Thus, when one loves it in turn it is itself a virtue. Likewise, loving the hatred of a good is evil because hatred of a good is itself an evil and loving an evil is evil.
The issue with the (CP) then is not that virtues and vices are not themselves a good, but that Hurka wishes to rank goods. He is attempting to see if virtue is the best base good or if other base goods outrank it, and likewise for vice and evils. I don't know what the solution is, but it seems in my opinion this virtue math is getting more and more complicated.
Post a Comment