Squidgy, eh? I mean, I hear what you’re saying. And the comments you raise are valid . . .

For example, my comments about self-interest and prudence. Behind those comments are two and a half centuries of argument, starting with Rousseau’s distinction between amour-propre and amour-de-soi – self-love and the love of oneself. That distinction goes back a thousand more years to St. Augustine and is picked up from Rousseau by Adam Smith in TMS and WN. Still, I did a very bad job of explaining what I was trying to say. What I meant was that most of the time we think of Prudence as self-interest, but that is a mistake. Prudence comes from an instinctual desire for self-preservation, but it must stop short of pride or selfishness in order to be a virtue. Because it’s on a continuum, it’s true that virtue can slide into vice and depends on perspective.

If it’s squidgy, I would say that’s because life itself is squidgy. We’re making choices in unique conditions. Those choices aim at virtue or vice, and achieve virtue only to the extent that there is knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and to the extent that we choose the good. Moreover, what we say about what we do can often redefine action in ways that are either legitimate/illegitimate, &c.

As for temperance, you make a good point. I was citing Pieper, who was citing Aristotle and Aquinas – all of whom wrote before the invention of the television and the full flowering of the cinematic arts. Perhaps we could make a case that it applies to vision, but traditionally it did not. (See the emphasis on experience.) What you raise about it being handed down from on high is a more valid point, I think. Many of these arguments are arguments from authority, but that evolved, I think, because virtue can be taught and the role of teachers made a big difference. It’s all about training and habit and being guided toward them.

As for the next installment . . . well . . . we’ll have to wait just a bit longer. It’s nice to know you’ve made your mind up either way.