How excellent can moral virtue be when it is dependent and conditioned? Adams in writing this book makes it seem as if we have a choice about morals and whether or not we are virtuous or vicious. In affirming that virtues are dependent, makes me wonder how much control do we have? It seems to be very little. Moral luck and situational ideas, along with personality influences makes it seem as if there is very little that makes humans praise-worthy. In fact, it would seem that virtues should not be a human excellence since it is so dependent on many other variables.
Furthermore, Adams says human excellence cannot be an ability and readiness to respond well to every circumstance (161). Then, we must be able to make our current life excellent for the good. However, this current life is dependent on moral luck, situations, and character. But note, that our character is also affected by social relationships, genetics, the environment. Thus, there is very little that we actually do in determining how excellent our life is. It would not make any sense to take credit for something that was not determined by us. Therefore, can virtue really be something that we should strive for personally?
Adams response saying additional good is worth celebrating whether or not it was deserved (164). I find this hard to swallow. Virtue is something that should be celebrated when earned. A series of lucky events does not cause for celebration for something as important as virtue. I find that virtues can only be called virtues when tested and tried and holds in every circumstance. Virtues although they cannot help but depend on luck, I believe is excellent when it involves moral effort. In claiming that virtue is a gift makes it no different. If it were the case that I received an important internship due to luck rather than my ability is not worth celebrating.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It seems like you’re saying that since moral luck exists to some extent, virtue loses all of its own intrinsic value. This statement in itself should seem a little contradictory to you – it does to me anyway. For a tangible example, let’s say that you can only acquire a taste for classical music if you are exposed to it sometime before the age of 20. There could be three different possible type of people in a world like this: someone who is never exposed to classical music before the age of 20, someone who is exposed to the music but doesn’t care for it at all for any number of reasons, and someone who is exposed to the music and develops a taste for it. Regardless of what type of person you are, you could still hold a similar view about whether or not it’s good to have a taste for classical music. The same goes with virtue – even if you have to come across it by chance (or conditioning), it could still be something to be valued in a person.
Let’s take a look at your own example, as it’s even more analogous than my example. Let’s say you get an internship with some amount of luck involved. This is still reason for celebration for a few reasons. One, regardless of luck, you have to be a being capable of performing the internship to even get it by luck. Two, the intership is an experience and you will gain knowledge from it and be able to make future decisions based on your experience with the internship. Likewise, you have to be a person capable of exhibiting virtue and you will have experienced what it’s like to exhibit virtue so you will be able to choose whether or not to strive to act virtuously in the future.
Post a Comment