From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Neutrality check
Labeling these things "vices" seems like a value judgment to me, as the word "vice" is inherently negative. A list of, say, "Christian vices" might be more appropriate, since it's attaching the view to a particular group. unless 03:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there such a thing as a "vice"? Yes there is. Which are the vices? This can be controversial, but there must be at least one vice, or there wouldn't be such a thing. So, we have established that vices exist, and that labeling anything as a vice is going to be controversial to one extent or another. Nevertheless, should not an exhaustive collection of knowledge, like Wikipedia, contain those character traits that are considered vices?- I don't mean to patronize, I just don't know how to respond... In this case, it seems that making a value judgment cannot exclude labeling characteristics as vices unless we also exclude labeling as virtues.
- The problem is that often one group sees a given character trait as a vice which another group sees as a virtue or as neutral. Perhaps the best recourse is to place those which are contested in this manner in both the virtue category and the vice category (where appropriate), or in a second category (like Category: Disputed virtue, Category: Disputed vice, or Category: Neutral).
- An example is homosexuality. This is currently listed (not by me) on the vice page, yet one of guidelines of Wikipedia is to reject biases like heteronormativity. Someone questioned its place on the list, and the reply was good. The editor suggested listing "rejection of homosexuality" as a vice. Maybe "heteronormativity" would fit that bill as it seems to be held as a vice (or as bad) by a significant amount of people.—Red Baron 20:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
