In reading the following quote, I felt somewhat perturbed:
(taken from 'Being Good' by Simon Blackburn, p. 54-55; emphasis mine)
"There may be yet other threads to ethics. We can become depressed by the role of luck in our lives. Suppose two drivers go down the same road, each showing the same small degree of carelessness. One arrives safely; the other kills a child who darts out front. This difference in luck affects how we think of them, how they think of themselves, and even the penalties imposed by society and by the law. Luck can do more to sway the way our lives go than virtue. Yet people are curiously unwilling to acknowledge this; we relentlessly take responsibility, as the myth of original sin shows. It seems we would prefer to be guilty than unlucky."
The part that struck me oddly is the line in italics: Luck can do more to sway the way our lives do than virtue.
Obviously, luck affects everyone in many ways. This part is not up for debate. But I do contest that it has more sway than virtue.
Following the example from the text, driver A is obviously lucky because he/she did not hit anyone or anything. Does it then necessarily follow that simply because he/she was lucky, that he/she was not wrong for carelessly driving?
Driver B suffered by hitting a child (who was obviously not trained in proper 'road etiquette' - but we'll leave that alone for now), and shall suffer the consequences. Assuming that Driver B feels guilt for his/her actions, this (in my mind) becomes a degree of atonement -- the guilt will serve as a reminder of what bad driving habits (might) cause.
Driver B caught a stroke of 'bad luck' -- is this sufficient criteria to deem him/her wholly un-virtuous? Or, is it that Driver B, in this particular incident, was (temporarily) un-virtuous in not being an attentive driver? If the latter is the case, then while luck may have altered the driver's overall virtue, it did not automatically comdemn him/her as completely un-virtuous. (In short -- Driver B has the ability to learn from this event, and, over time, regain those 'lost notches' of virtue.)
Just how far does luck go in pertaining to virtue? Barring death (ultimately unlucky), a stroke of bad luck can serve as a challenge to react virtuously.
Fortune is fickle -- it's an external event of which we have absolutely no control over.
"Good fortune deceives, adverse fortune teaches. Good fortune enslaves the mind of good men with the beauty of the specious goods which they enjoy; but bad fortune frees them by making them see the fragile nature of happiness. You will notice that good fortune is proud, insecure, ignorant of her true nature; but bad fortune is sober, self-possessed, and prudent through the experience of adversity." (taken from 'The Consolation of Philosophy' by Boethius, p. 40)
In this particular passage, Lady Philosophy speaks of positions, titles, and material goods (all of which Boethius has lost in being exiled). However, her words do not have to be limited to these, and indeed may be extended to include all strokes of good or bad luck. While we do not have control over the event's happening, we do have control over our reaction to that event. Isn't that what virtue is about?
Akin to the idea of karma, the reaction is, I think, the most necessary aspect of determining whether a person in any given situation is behaves virtuously.
Example: Via a stroke of bad luck, a board falls and strikes my foot. Because I happened to be wearing sandals, there's more pain (and a greater chance that, as my grandmother says, I'll sit right down and talk to God about it).
Am I suddenly down-graded to 'un-virtuous' because I did not pay attention, or did not properly store the board?
The difference is whether I get frustrated and lash out at other objects or people, or whether I accept the event, feel my pain, and let it go. Not necessarily forgetting it, but letting go of the guilt/shame/frustration, fixing the situation as best as I can, learning from it and moving on.
I do not agree that luck sways our lives more than virtue -- luck may throw us curve balls, but it does not change how we swing the bat.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I know this isn't an E & A post, but I just wanted to say that I liked your sentence, "Barring death (ultimately unlucky), a stroke of bad luck can serve as a challenge to react virtuously." Very nice.
Thank You. =-)
Could it stand as a good thesis statement?
Some variation might, I suppose; one, in particular, that evolved to include some more direct reference to E & A.
Fair enough. I'd really have to do some re-arranging... and in the end I don't think it'll work for E&A.
I don't think that humanity's choice of farming animals is a stroke of bad luck, nor the ostrich syndrome that follows (which makes the choice passive, the habit unconscious).
It might be considered unlucky from the animals' point of view...
And equally unlucky from the general population's point of view that the ethics, the alternatives, et cetera, are not being circulated as much as they should be...
Would it work as a thesis statement in general then?
What does "it" refer to in your final sentence?
Sorry!
'It' refers to the sentence: "Barring death (ultimately unlucky), a stroke of bad luck can serve as a challenge to react virtuously."
Question re-phrased: Would the above sentence work as a thesis statement?
Again, for E&A you would need to bring in some direct reference to A.
For some other purpose, I refer you to STEP-I, posted to my "thinking and writing" resources on my webpage.
Post a Comment