On pages 159-160, Adams argues that the very virtuous only become that way with some examples of virtue, though he does say that those examples may not be the naturally strongest influences (e.g. parents) in the life of a virtuous person. Adams argues that a whole framework of thinking is necessary for virtue to sprout and, perhaps especially, blossom, and continue to blossom. He points to this as a reason why moral luck is important.
Examples of virtue may play a role, but I wonder if challenges to virtue are just as if not more important. Just as a person can grow weak from a lack of challenges, so too can a person grow morally weak from a lack of moral dilemmas. A world in which there is no chance to lie would probably not be a world with strong collective honesty, but rather one where great external pressures on individuals forces them to be honest. And, if a chance to lie ever became apparent, people in that world would probably be more likely to lie than would people truly possessing the virtue of honesty, unless simple force of habit kept them honest. Going beyond that, a virtuous person is probably not just inspired by good examples in life, but also is disgusted by bad examples. Perhaps the good examples shine even more brightly when compared to the bad examples. Though Adams rightly points to moral luck as being important in the growth, development, and persistence of virtue, he fails to point out the importance of vice in building virtue. Moral luck is not just a matter of virtue begetting virtue; it's a complex and delicate nurturing of virtue, highly susceptible to screw ups and highly dependent on a person's own initiative to either work on his own virtue or to attempt to provide a good example to others.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Adams seems to think the term "moral luck" mostly applies to the sort of moral environment/society/exemplars one is brought up around, but I think Chris is right to point out moral luck just as much applies to the sort of moral dilemmas one is forced to face.
Good "moral luck" means being presented with real moral dilemmas and having the insight, whether through nature or experience, to see which actions bring about the best result—a condition that is not proven to be contingent on good parenting. Adams overlooks this fact when he states "Being badly brought up is surely a piece of bad moral luck." Isn't it possible that parents who behave immorally or irresponsibly, through negative example, could still impart a positive moral awareness on their child? Take the case of family torn apart because of the father's infidelity. On Adam's view, the child, with no positive examples of matrimonial virtue, will be more inclined to repeat the father's errors. I contend that it’s possible, if not likely, that the child, having experienced the effects of the father's vice firsthand, could be more romantically faithful and morally aware than he would be otherwise.
It may be, in practical terms, "unlucky" to be raised poorly, but Adams should think twice before connecting unlucky circumstances with negative moral consequences.
i could argue on behalf of adams that someone needs only to see the good in order to be virtuous. while a person who has not engagued any viciousness in their life would be less adept at resisting it than someone who has not, i believe that a person ina perfect world could be just as virtuous as a real person.
Adams said before taht there is no use in thinking about evil and viciousness because it is just a distraction. i think that he would stick to the same idea here and say that a person who lived their life free of resisting vice would be additionally free from the distractions from life brought by vice. So while i think that adams feels that moral luck in involved in a persons virtue i feel as though someone who never has to face vice would be the lucky one.
Post a Comment