Talk:Vice

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Ethics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion: Interfaith Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Furthermore, what does Miami Vice have to do with vice, apart from the obvious similarities in the names? I removed [[1]] this link, as it did not seem overly relevant to the topic. If anyone has a reason to keep it in, feel free to revert my edit. --222.153.63.59 06:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Christian vices seems unfounded and unreasonable. Where are the sources for this? --Alexander 08:56, 26 May 2006 (GMT+2)

I feel that the inclusion of "homosexuality" with the terms drugs, gambling, recklessness, cheating, lying, selfishness and sexual promiscuity is extremely offensive, misplaced and stereotypical. It should be removed, unless certain sexual behaviours in the "heterosexual" community are also listed (some of which are too shocking to list). -- Paul 10:35, 14 November 2006 (GMT)

This article is a study of views on vices. In reference to homosexuality, whether or not one considers it offensive is irrelevant to whether it should be included since as part of a complete study of what people perceive as vice, it has been and is still considered a vice by existing populations. I would advise that rather than taking offense, someone edit the article to note specifically which groups or demographics today consider rejection of homosexuality a vice. --kjr99044 Sun Dec 17 2006

If you look at it that way then being part of a religion could be a vice! You practice a religion and so that could make it a vice. So why not put up every single religion? Why single out homosexuals?

Anything can be a vice, yes. Its what society deems immoral in that particular area, or particular time. Religion isn't listed because Western culture does not see religion as vice as a whole, or in any significant minority at this time.

Taking offense to it being included in the list is, honestly, just stupid, since it does not claim, or even imply, that any of the things listed truly are immoral, just that they are viewed by a significant portion of Western society as such, which isn't inaccurate.

Saying you take offense to it being in the list is like a black person taking offense to someone acknowledging the existance "of racism. - --99.147.227.251 (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your admission that "homosexuality shouldn't be there, it doesn't belong there...but I'll settle if you include some heterosexual practices" is an obvious indicator of a strong POV here. I have re-added homosexuality to the list.

Personally, I do not think homosexuality is a negative lifestyle choice, but society typically does, and it therefore should be included. As a recreational drug-user, I do not see drug-use as a negative lifestyle choice, yet I do not object to it being included in the list becuase the list is an example of things considered "vices". The list is not an automatic indicator of what is bad, which I think is where the controversy is arising. --Ryan1711

Homosexuality is becoming mainstream because homosexuals have successfully convinced people that homosexuality is not so much a vice as something ingrained and innocuous. Homosexuals successfully redefined public attitudes by treating child molesters as pariahs while convincing most straight people that homophobic violence is a threat to people other than gays and lesbians... and grief to people whose loved ones are homosexual. People apparently cannot choose whether they are homosexuals or not, but they can certainly decide that they will not treat children as sexual targets.

So child molestation of any kind as self-indulgent behavior is a vice, and violence against homosexuals is a crime. The fitting position is that same-sex rights are not vice because such is necessary for the fundamental decency of law and order. Straight or not, we are similarly denied the license to abuse children whether as "straight" or "same-sex" vice -- if one considers "vice" to mean self-indulgent behavior that hurts or exploits others for personal gratification.Pbrower2a (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally looking up the word 'vice' with reference to titles like 'vice - president'. Does anyone know why such an unlikely word preceeds such titles? GN 15:10 07Dec2006

"Vice" also means "instead of" or "in succession to", according to the OED. The etymologies of the different meanings are entirely different. unless 03:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of "guilt" being considered a vice--perhaps the self-recognition of committing a vice, but I really don't think guilt itself is condemmed as one. I may be wrong, and if I am I'm very interested in hearing the explanation of how it is a vice, but until then I'm cutting it from the list. Irish♣Pearl 21:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition used in this article needs to show the full scope of vice as shown in NPOV dictionaries[2]. This article seems to be missing many things about vice in the real world. I am going to include a broader study of vice so that this article is more complete. Please offer suggestions.

Also we need to make distinctions between what religious people call vices and what the secular societies see as vices. This article as written seemed be packed with religious points of view about vice. We need to separate religious points of view as religious in nature, show the secular definitions and make clear distinctions between them so that this article remains NPOV...otherwise it will resemble a religious rant. 128.111.95.36 04:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused with the associations between certains vices and the corresponding virtues. I already made a change regarding "blasphemy" and "apostasy". I am also confused how the opposite of "temperance" is "lust". Also, I am simply not familiar with "venality". It is very probable that these are all correct, but they are not intuitive, and so they require some kind of justification (read sourcing).—Red Baron 15:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do a throught examination of the list, but bad eyesight AKA "

It has nothing to do with eye sight in this context, but not looking to the future, and just thinking about the immediate result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.227.251 (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is stupidity a vice? I think it is - trust me 24.129.239.143 07:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) (foar tilde pawaa)[reply]

Why is apathy considered a vice? I don't see it as a bad thing, and am apathetic often towards stuff. (Hence the fact I don't care if I use "stuff") 24.129.239.143 07:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) (foar tilde pawaa)[reply]

I think the listing of possible vices is out of touch with Wikipedia as a project - stylistically, it's rather lack-luster. Wouldn't we be better served to make a category for traditional vices? There are still those qualities - for example, alcoholism and homosexuality - which are under debate by a sizable number of people as to their viciousness, though these could be included in a subcategory if need be. Iro (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest getting rid of the list entirely. It's unnecessary, politically charged, and adds literally nothing to the article. Not to mention a serious lack of thoroughness regarding the list. If it is based on "cultural norms," what cultures consider each act a vice? During what time periods? Why? The linked articles do not explain any of this, and the vice article doesn't contain any of this information -- let alone citations from anthropologists explaining -- OBJECTIVELY -- which cultures consider(ed) what a vice, why, etc.. - BL

Why do we use the word "vice" to call important position.. eg. vice president —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.170.10.119 (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old thread but, in case anybody is wondering, the two uses come from two different Latin expressions:

• vitium - fault
• vice - instead of

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following material is largely redundant with the content of this article, but didn't belong on the virtue page:

Capital vices

The seven capital vices or seven deadly sins suggest a classification of vices and were enumerated by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. The Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions them as "capital sins which Christian experience has distinguished, following St. John Cassian and St. Gregory the Great."[1] "Capital" here means that these sins stand at the head (Latin caput) of the other sins which proceed from them, e.g., theft proceeding from avarice and adultery from lust.

These vices are

Ranked in order of severity as per

The 4th century Egyptian monk Evagrius Ponticus defined the sins as deadly "passions," and in Eastern Orthodoxy, still these impulses are characterized as being "Deadly Passions" rather than sins. Instead, the sins are considered to invite or entertain these passions. In the official Catechism of the Catholic Church published in 1992 by Pope John Paul II, these seven vices are considered moral transgression for Christians and the virtues should complement the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes as the basis for any true Morality.

-DoctorW 23:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is heavily slanted toward Christianity, and really Roman Catholic Christianity at that. I have added some sections that address a broader range of views on the subject but these are essentially just stub sections at the moment. In addition to these sections there should be a general section discussing the nature of vice in general (i.e. how societies have historically defined vice, what commonalities there are in the definition of vice by different societies, why people are tempted to do things that are taboo or frowned upon by their societies, etc.).

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that vice is related to concupiscence or the tendency to sin. Neither article mentions the other; perhaps a treatment of their related qualities is in order. Elizium23 (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:The children - victims of adult vices.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:The children - victims of adult vices.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- talk) 01:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090513003646/http://literalmagazine.com:80/es/archive-L14.php? to http://www.literalmagazine.com/es/archive-L14.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505235431/http://www.italnet.nd.edu/Dante/images/tp1515/1515.wc3.150dpi.jpeg to http://www.italnet.nd.edu/Dante/images/tp1515/1515.wc3.150dpi.jpeg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205212641/http://www.italnet.nd.edu/Dante/text/1515.venice.html to http://www.italnet.nd.edu/Dante/text/1515.venice.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://literalmagazine.com/es/archive-L14.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link for foot note one: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/d/did/did2222.0000.010/--vice?rgn=main;view=fulltext — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roni Salza (talk • contribs) 21:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has written under the section of religion. Atheism: Vices are those behaviors which are inherently harmful to oneself and society. First off, atheism is not a religion. Second, there isn't anything moral in atheism. Atheism is just a label for someone who does not believe in any particular god or claims there are no gods. The opposite of atheism is theism. That's someone who believes in 1 or more gods. These don't have anything to do with morals. Vmelkon (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One can be an atheist and recognize that self-indulgent behavior that hurts innocent or helpless people is vice. It is possible to be an atheist and decry drunkenness, drug use, child molestation, gambling, and prostitution as vices. I could make the case that atheism gives one even more responsibility for personal morality than does a religious position that offers

If anything I have my definition of vice that I might propose: self-indulgent behavior that either hurts or exploits others or offers only ephemeral delight at exorbitant cost.Pbrower2a (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only source for this subsection is an archived article on The Free Dictionary. Nothing I read about that site suggests it's reliable, but even if it were, the section doesn't offer anything besides a generic definition. No examples of where these operate (if they still do), or any real evidence that they even exist. The releant image is a black and white photo of a couple of people hanging out in an office. Not to mention that people who search for the band Vice Squad or any of the movies, will be redirected here. This needs better sourcing. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My concern and suggestion is that when you are blip a call or Christian or any type of religion that does sacrifice themselves when they are victimized by such cruelty and immoral sins like the seven deadly sins and the deadly sins and prerogative worry what can a person actually due to circumference themselves what kind of person actually due to domain there in complacent Ness of the seven deadly sins 70.65.182.65 (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

School 88.118.3.188 (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]