Some would have it known that they would prefer to live with one vice over another. While I understand the sentiment therein, I wouldn't consider this is be an effective way of thinking. More specifically, I see it as a daydream that inhibits personal development. It is in my opinion a gross misunderstanding of the eternal conflict between Good and Evil. It can be agreed upon by most people that there are dispositions which should be avoided, and which cause turmoil in the self as well as in others. I will remind you of the "Seven Deadly Sins." Regardless of your religious tradition, assume for the sake of uniformity that the Seven Deadly Sins do in fact represent dispositions in the self that should not be promoted. The human condition is universally consistent, and the ailments and joys of mankind can be categorized into vices and virtues which juxtapose one another so well as to provide a relatively easy understanding of what to do, and what not to do, but I digress.
Lust
Gluttony
Greed
Sloth
Wrath
Envy
Pride
While the human condition is universal, this does not mean that everybody has the same dominant vice in their lives. For example, some struggle with lust while they remain relatively unenvious. On the other hand, there are likely gluttons who are very charitable, and despise greed. Each person, being a unique individual with respectively unique experiences and inclinations, drifts to one vice or another. As a broad example, one might reasonably expect a Hollywood celebrity to struggle with pride more than your average middle-aged farmer. This is not to say, of course, that the farmer cannot have pride as his primary vice; it is simply not as expected as the former.
In the naivety that all men have, we suppose that we would fare better with another vice which is different from the one that we struggle with at present. As mentioned in the beginning, this is a dangerous and self-destructive characteristic and, conveniently enough, resembles a thinking that, if repeated habitually, effectuates the vice of Pride (Aquinas reasons that a vice constitutes an amoral habit, not an isolated sinful act).
Why is the above sentiment harmful? It ignores the condition of a person, and ignores the abstract reality that who you are is who you are, and what could have made you anybody else is cemented in the past and is therefore unchangeable. Time spent pondering on which vice you would prefer is time wasted not conquering the vice at hand. The Philosopher says, "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is the victory over self." Simply put, there is no reality in which you have the vice you would prefer. With that being said, since the severity of a vice proceeds from our personal condition, even another reality wherein you might have had an alternative vice, you would deeply struggle with it proportionally. Each vice leads to the destruction of the self in its own respectively abominable ways. Outside of the personal understanding of your own vice, lust for example, there are others who are likewise crumbling away—at war with gluttony.
The glutton might say, "If I at least struggled with lust, I might find pleasure," where as the lustful person might say "If I at least struggled with gluttony, I might enjoy food more." The error in both lies in the assumption that the pleasure derived from either will lead to a greater fulfillment of self that is not currently attained by subsisting in their current vice and, as mentioned above, this error is damnable; there is ultimately nothing redemptive about a vice. There is no satisfactory ending to a life unapologetically steeped in vice without the admission of guilt and the intention to change. Each vice leads down a proportionally destructive road, contrary to the ultimate desires of mankind.
Comments