"If they don't have it, they don't have it."

I would like to firstly say that I was disappointed with Adams (apart from simply not believing him) when he stated in Chap. 9 that he did not consider himself qualified enough to delve into whether the drunk-driving killer should be punished or blamed for what amounts to a very unfortunate coincidence: that he killed someone because somehow, they ended up in front of the driver’s car. While I’m often in admiration of what my classmates in virtue ethics have to say about several issues, including the one above, I doubt that even the most insightful of them are as qualified as Adams to make statements about the issue. They still did, however, or at least tried. Way to cop out, Adams.
But I digress. The focus of this blog post is that I was actually impressed with Adams on his point that virtue is a gift, from whatever source. I was initially opposed to the idea; I’ll admit that I still like the (admittedly, rather happy-go-lucky ) thought that virtue is something accessible to everyone if they just work hard enough and that an initial “gift” is not necessary; that after whatever work is required, something will suddenly “click” and the rest is moral history.
But after reading Adams’ side, my views changed, particularly due to his description of how a Mozart concerto would be no less beautiful had it taken much pain and effort to write. Though Adams was trying to support that effort does not detract from the gift, it made me try to think of a counterexample in which effort alone could account for the thing’s value. I attempted to think of counterexamples but could only come up with the abilities of intelligence, dancing, and artistry: all of which seem to require at least some amount of initial talent as a foundation to the work spent practicing, studying, and training. Along these lines, something my father said about dancing comes to mind: “You can teach the choreography, you can teach any number of things, but you can’t teach timing. If they don’t have it, they don’t have it.”
Maybe I just didn’t think of the right counterexample. But till then, I must admit that Adams has changed my point of view; one must “have it” to begin with in order to be virtuous.
You win for now, Adams.