Sunday, November 9, 2008
I think I like Adams...
In thinking about this post I found plenty of nit-picky things I could have complained about. However, I decided to spend my blog talking about the fact that I think I'm kind of an Adams fan. What I think Adams has going for him that both Taylor and Hurka did not is that he is not an idealist. I mean I'll admite he sounds like it at times with his frequent use of "excellence". However, what put me in the mood for this is his line on page 110: "I think it is healthier to pursue important goods without worrying whether they are the best." At first this line worried me. Why is he talking about what is healthy? Shouldn't he be talking about what is more moral? But maybe he has a point. Taylor and Hurka discussed virtue and vice in ideal ways, in ways that aren't real. It is great to isolate single vices and see what is wrong with them. And sure it is great to have a mathematical way to analyze one's virtue. But these are not real. Adams is. He knows we aren't perfect. He realizes that people enjoy art and that's pretty cool. He knows that we have our own interest at heart sometimes and he realizes that collective goods are pretty sweet too. He basically tries to show how we can do the best with what we got. I find that many discussions of morality and virtue leave one feeling like it is impossible to live up to the standards. Perhaps morality is like that. But I find it advantageous to have a book that seems to understand how humans work and accept that. Adams still sees plenty of vices. However, he allows for some wiggle room in the virtues. You don't have to always go for what is best. After all, if you did you would probably drive yourself crazy and wouldn't be able to accomplish anything at all. It's healthier to pursue important goods and not worry about them being the best. He still wants us to find important goods, but it's ok if you are not the epitome of virtue. We are all human. We don't always seek the best. But so long as we are for some important good in an excellent way we can all be virtuous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I am just curious about your interpretation of Taylor (Hurka I am not going to argue) as operating under ideals that are not real. All Taylor did was try to prove that vices, each individual vice were intrinsically bad, which I do not think is unrealistic. One could argue many things are bad and not be labelled as some sort of unrealist. Your concept of what is real confuses. I believe that reality is merely a construct of the exact instance in which you consciously realize yourself and the world, so under that notion, is it folly to try discern what would be best for the present reality? I think not.
However, I do agree with your notion that Adams' notion of morality is perhaps less demanding in that it lowers the emphasis on "best" from a level of extreme to something lower. But lets be honest here, is Adams not trying to come up with a better, or perhaps, best way of going about living and structuring one's moral character? so in that case, I would say that he is just as much an idealist as Taylor and perhaps even Hurka in that regard.
Post a Comment