It’s a trivial point I guess, but I disagree with Adams on his point that a lack of playfulness does not constitute a flaw in the character of the person concerned. Adams characterizes “playfulness” as not failing to take serious things seriously, but still recognizing “the limits of their importance” (p. 202). While simply hearing the word “playfulness” might make it seem as though it’s not a problem to the possession of Virtue, Adams’s (in my opinion, odd) description of playfulness is not a good example of the point he was trying to make.
Personally, I think having an insufficient ability to determine importance of things would in fact be a detrimental to the person concerned, and to their Virtue (at least to some degree). Suppose someone lacking playfulness (by Adams’s terms) fails to take seriously their friend’s distress, or takes too seriously a trivial matter; these failures of perception could have moral consequences. This is not to say that I disagree with Adams on his point that not having certain virtues is not a bad thing; I’m simply saying he used a bad example, given his definition of playfulness. Had he used an example such as consistence in healthy diet and regular exercise (provided that “consistence” can be broken into individual examples as such, instead of “umbrella virtues” discussed earlier in the semester), he would have better supported his point. If one eats five fruits and vegetables every day, I would consider their behavior a virtue. But if they don’t do so, this does not mean they are not a “good person” because of it.
1 comment:
I think your objection to his use of playfulness as a nonrequired virtue is a bit shortsighted. Your objection lies in the fact that you considered both directions that playfulness could fail. I believe this isn’t what Adams had in mind exactly. By a lack of playfulness I believe he meant that you could not underestimate the seriousness of situations; however, you would possibly miss opportunities to be less serious in some situations. While you might miss some opportunities to be sillier or joke around, you would still take everything seriously that needs to be taken seriously. I doubt you’d be willing to call any of the missed opportunities moral failures – you’d be letting some things count as moral failures. For instance you might not develop as close a friendship with someone who likes people who joke around, but on the same coin a person could be opposed to someone who jokes around in semi-serious situations.
I’m now going to offer up a brief argument against the other failure of playfulness. As I said already I believe Adams would say a lack of playfulness is being serious when it’s unnecessary. If you were to take the other side, I believe being unable to realize the seriousness of some occasions could definitely be a moral failure, but this wouldn’t be a lack of playfulness. It would instead be maybe a vice that is a lack of seriousness as a whole, not necessarily a lack of playfulness. Looking at it this way allows us to say that a lack of playfulness is not a vice but that playfulness might still be considered a virtue, if you think being playful can be for the good.
Post a Comment