I'm curious what Adam's would say to the common projects most commonly shown through certain art movements such as "Cool" jazz. The "cool" jazz players focused on doing it for themselves and if people liked it, then cool man. They didn't put much emotion into their playing and would just do it because they loved playing but for simply the sake of playing. They didn't care where it went, who listened, they almost yearned for unpopularity while trying to master the art of jazz. Similar movements have popped up in modern art as well as religious and socio-political organizations who do their own thing and are impartial to or against their actions, intentions, and success being public knowledge.
I see how he could manage saying they were virtuous, but they almost seem morally ambiguous by Adam's standards. They do what they do excellently and what they do is partially virtuous (by the concept they want to excel and have their band-mates excel at playing) but yet they do not wish for any sort of public awareness or acceptance (which is someone rebellious [maybe?] and could be seen as evil).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think Adams would say that at least in the case of the cool jazz musicians, their actions of playing jazz would be virtuous; and I think he would give reasons similar to the ones you gave in your second paragraph, that of wanting to excel, as well as wanting their band mates to excel.
Regarding the musicians' lack of concern for public opinion, I doubt that Adams would consider this important for whether or not their pursuit of jazz is virtuous or not. Consider Adams' scenario about the "good colleague" in the philosophy department on pp. 84-85. He describes this "good colleague" as someone who cares about the project "for its own sake," works hard to improve it, and in short "wants it to be the best...it can be." This sounds very similar to your descriptions of the cool jazz musicians, who worked hard to excel at jazz and, I assume, progress the art by mastering it. I believe that with this being the case, Adams would think public opinion is unimportant when considering such a project to be a virtue or not; while Adams mentions that others should admire the philosopher, he does not mention this as a necessary condition for the philosopher's actions to be moral.
What I think would be necessary for Adams to consider the musicians' efforts a bad thing, is if jazz were an evil common project, indicated on p. 86 when he states that "devotion to an evil project is bad." But since jazz is not evil, but rather can be considered good through its possibility to inspire others (despite that not being the intentions of the musicians) and give the musicians something beneficial to care about, then jazz is an overall virtuous common project.
I came up with another problem with Adams definition of common projects. It seems that his ideas of altruism and common projects will not hold up under certain cases. For example, many of us get involved in projects because our friends are so actively involved in them and we wish to support them. As a result we may not be excellently involved in them according to Adams standards and as a result Adams calls this a moral shortcoming or a moral failure.
But at the same time isn't this act to help your friend's cause an act of altruism? Especially if the common project you are both involved in is a charity project, then you are not only acting altruisticly towards your friend but also to the benefitors of the common project.
It seems that Adams would say your involvement is altruistic and thus virtuous, but at the same time he would have to say that your involvement in the common project is not virtuous because you fail to be involved excellently.
It seems like the two contradict eachother and I wonder what Adams would have to say about such a situation.
I agree there could be situations that are difficult to judge with Adam's view of virtue and common projects. Veronica's post reminds me of a scene from the tv show "Freaks and Geeks" in which a young man, Sam, joins his highschool yearbook club to gain the affection of a girl he likes and considers a friend (and who is also in the club). He has no sincere interest in the success of the yearbook, but he does have an interest in enhancing his relationship with the girl. Sam goes fundraising and raises hundreds of dollars for the yearbook. How virtuous would Adams consider this behavior? Does it qualify as a "common project?"
I think Adams would have to say it is a virtuous common project, but only as far as friendship is considered a common project. Sam gets virtue points for enhancing the relationship with his friend and love interest (as long as it is friendship/love for it's own sake, nothing ulterior). Sam does not get credit for his contributions to the common project of yearbook fundraising, because he does not care about the members of the group themselves.
Post a Comment