@sim If you define a vice as something that stops an individual reaching their full potential (difficult to define I agree) and a virtue as something that helps them towards it then yes, vices should be reduced where possible and virtue increased.
my point is epistemic; such a definition of virtue and vice is nice as far as it goes but almost impossible to clearly state in an individual case, let alone in general.
@sim i've given a few examples above; psychedelics and alcohol use might be an example, pre-marital sex another
for some, these are not appealing and morally wrong, for others it forms a healthy part of their life
what's an example of a vice for you
@DW2
> *fully* legal
life in the UK is a little more complex than it first appears
@sim
> Suddenly, you are justifying vices as means.
nuance is not watering down the discussion, but dogma can end it
@sim people are different, a writer who spends their days at a desk and occasionally going for walks will require less protein than an olympic athlete
same with lifestyles, some people can work harder with little need for recreation, others need a little more chaos uncertainty to thrive and be creative
the idea one can provide a single heterogeneous moral mean for all humanity seems detached from reality , unless you're aiming for something very abstract that can be so generalised
@sim yeah I figured it was either Aristotle or Plato, should have guessed from the discussion about the mean
everyone has their own mean I think, so to judge someone for being "vicious" is often projecting our issues onto them, doesn't really help anyone
have you read any Girard? he goes into projection and mimetics alot; things hidden since the foundation of the world almost turned me Christian, it's that trenchant
@sim any clear delineation between virtue and vice, barring the most egregious of acts, is not east to fine and often a matter of one's personality
@thedonnerd @11112011 what if you reported the newws