Conscious intention to be good verses natural goodness
Can we commend those who demonstrate antisocial behaviour but are aware of it and continuously try to prevent it having adverse effects in their social interactions as on an equal footing with someone who doesn’t naturally lean this way but is perhaps also not as aware of the human capacity to be antisocial and have nastiness in them.
For example a comparison between someone who is kind and amiable but naive to the darker human side as they simply have never experienced it and don’t exhibit it in themselves - someone who sees the best in people and assumes that people are good verses someone who has the opposite feelings but hides and suppresses it for the desire to be like the aforementioned individual - kind and amiable.
Who is trying to uphold moral values more; someone naturally bad that forces themselves to be good or someone who is naturally good but doesn’t have to try to be.
Basically, Do you believe some people require a larger effort in self reflection, meditation and self-directed positive cognitive training to maintain the same good traits/values as someone who just does it in the first place without thinking?
For example a comparison between someone who is kind and amiable but naive to the darker human side as they simply have never experienced it and don’t exhibit it in themselves - someone who sees the best in people and assumes that people are good verses someone who has the opposite feelings but hides and suppresses it for the desire to be like the aforementioned individual - kind and amiable.
Who is trying to uphold moral values more; someone naturally bad that forces themselves to be good or someone who is naturally good but doesn’t have to try to be.
Basically, Do you believe some people require a larger effort in self reflection, meditation and self-directed positive cognitive training to maintain the same good traits/values as someone who just does it in the first place without thinking?
Comments (35)
Yes, because 'natural' is not really natural... nobody is expected to behave good as a baby. There's allways an education preceding the age where one is considered morally responsible. And since not everybody has had an equally good education, there will be differences.
'Without thinking', or 'natural', or 'intuitive' always also means trained to behave in that way to some extend... that's a point that virtue ethics usually makes clear, a point that is perhaps a bit forgotten in this day and age.
So one would imagine it is the same for those who for one reason or another developed narcoses of some for from a hostile environment but chose to be better than their conditions vs someone who never had to go through an ordeal that may affect their personality negatively
People are in general naturally bad. Good is an extremely complex equation. Good in some cases getting rid of all your money and stuff and being homeless. This is why it is easier for some one not married to be good. Life extremely complex.
Do you really believe so? Would it not make sense that people are more likely neither good nor bad when uneducated as to the meaning of both in a social sense... and that it is their life decisions + their circumstances/ the life they were born into that decides whether they are good or bad.
For example if people are naturally bad that would suggest that they are genetically predisposed to being bad/ sinful/ negative in quality: selfish, greedy, cold, inconsiderate, egotistical... but what good does that do in the modern human world? We may be animals but are we really that “animalistic”?
On the other hand, a perverse nature might, with a salutary early education, be turned away from perversity. By the way, wouldn’t you agree that the education of a perverse nature must be punitive in character?
I would disagree on the simply notion that to treat the perverse with perverse methodology only teaches them what they already know. If we punish those who only know punishment as a way of being are we really offering any alternative? How do you teach a child to listen? You listen to them. Then apply your demonstration of the concept in reverse no?
When a child with a bad nature who has been educated in this way grows up, when he feels the desire to harm, will remember, subconsciously, the pain or threat of pain (which, btw, is worse than the pain itself) that accompanies such thoughts and will desist from acting on them.
Ok.
Everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. And yes, some people are just naturally more skilled in areas that are of high social value. But even those people who have a high EQ will also have areas of relative weakness. No one is exempt from the task, or the reward, of self-improvement. We are all human.
What would you call a child whose parents didn't want him, but had him anyway, and have always sent him subtle or overt messages that it would be better if he didn't exist?
Of course.
Take another practical example with two non-smokers: Tom has never smoked and has no difficulty not smoking. Harry, on the other hand, used to smoke for thirty years, but quit and he now hasn't smoked for five years.
Who should be commended?
How do you factor in the beginning point for each? Ethically, it makes a difference whether Tom is simply an intuitive non-smoker, or whether he actually chose not to smoke at some point.
I've heard once there is something good even in a bad person who tries hide his evil ways. I think it's in reference to the idea that a truly bad person would feel excitement in showing off what bad things he could do to people and watching the reactions and suffering of his victims.
But on to your point -- there is an effort exerted by the former that the latter isn't engaged in at the same given moment. The first one can take credit for this effort -- he is actively suppressing his true nature in favor of acting morally. So, he is commendable, first, regarding himself, and two, regarding the effects of this action to others.
But to answer the question of who is trying to uphold moral values more -- there's a few more things to touch on this subject. But I think of two students who scored equally in an exam -- but one, naturally lazy, studied long and hard just to be like others. Should this student be given an extra praise for achieving what others achieve naturally? Yes!
Saints are the paradigm of 'natural benevolence'. But there is a motif in hagiography (which is the study of the lives of the saints) of "enantiodromia" (that is, the tendency of something to be converted into its opposite). Many saints lived the opposite of saintly lives, selfish and dissolute, up until a moment of enantiodromia.
It is the tension between opposites which generates energy.
Yes. People aren't responsible for they're upbringing but that are responsible for questioning their beliefs. Someone who understands on a cognitive level that their reactions might not be good and tempers them is admirable imo, precisely because challenging your own beliefs is tougher than acting on them.
Yeah I suppose you’re right. It’s for their own good at the end of the day better to be punished by a parent early than the law later
...then one day a crisis occurs; maybe a dear sister of the convent tragically dies (I don’t remember), and the mischievous girl secretly witnesses the painful but pious manner the chief sister prays for her perished comrade, and invokes god...
At any rate, having witnessed this, she experiences a conversion to the church, and dedicates herself as a nun, her rebellious character replaced by a serene and pious countenance.
And you have some reason to believe that early punishment works well on children whose parents didn't want them, but had them anyway, and have always sent them subtle or overt messages that it would be better if they didn't exist?
Many children are unwanted by their parents, yet their parents keep them anyway. Such children can end up with various psychological problems.
How fair is it to say those children have a "bad nature"?
How do you know whether a particular child has a bad/perverse nature due to genetics, or whether it is due to poor parenting?
I feel this has a very strong message. That being that one cannot know piety without knowing mischievousness/rebellion. In a process by where you elect one of two ways of living it only makes sense to try them both on for size so to speak and witness what each offers. One would imagine a healthy appreciation of both angles: the pros and cons of both rebelling against unquestionable authority verses the knowledge of intention and the wisdom and experience required to take on a pious and authoritarian role would reveal the truths of both.
In that it is always acceptable for one to question previous ways for validity and correctness but it is essential not to act blindly/ rash in either case: Never fully trust what you’re told but always listen and consider at the same time where it may have originated from.
No because this is a question of the origin of the intention to punish. If a parent punishes out of loathing it is toxic but if they punish out of protection/ fear or concern for their child’s wellbeing - ie loving punishment then it may be appropriate.
For example a child who runs out on to a road dangerously may instil a hyper aggressive reaction from a parent that fears for their life. They will remember that it was a bad thing and that they got punished for it and won’t do it again, now, whether they come to appreciate why that happened is down to clear communication from the parent as to why they were angry or simply from reflecting as they mature themselves and reevaluate it from an adult perspective.
Indeed, it is essential that children feel they belong and are deserving of the life given to them. If they are not then it is the responsibility of society to make arrangements for another nurturing environment that provides for this basic need.
It’s worth noting that a lot of criminal/ deviant behaviour in young adults arises from this type of childhood anxiety and failure to thrive due to toxic nurturing. In this case should we not consider the individual circumstances that may have led one to deviant behaviour. It may help to establish a means by which we can empathise with those who have wronged us and help rehabilitate them into a functional/ social lifestyle
...when I was a child there was a boy I knew both at school and privately, for his and my parents were friends, and I sometimes played with him. He was an only child, and was therefore doted on more than usual, and raised permissively, but his evil exploits became legend both in school, through anecdote, and by my own personal experience...
...he attempted to steal one of my possessions (his parents caught him, and returned it); he shot at me with my own air-rifle; slung a steel cable through the air right in front of my face; cut a boy, who had to be rushed to hospital, at school with a piece of glass he picked up off the ground; killed his neighbor’s cat then brought it into her dining room while she was eating breakfast and asked, “is this your cat?”, etc, etc...
I don’t know what sort of punishment he endured for doing these things, from either his parents or the school; neither can I say how much of his bad behavior resulted from his permissive upbringing as opposed to his bad nature...
...but I know for sure at least some of it, if not the brunt of it, was due to nature. I was raised rather permissively myself, and I did some bad things too as a child that I believe are attributable to my permissive upbringing...but I never did things so bad as this guy.
But the question was whether we can know that a child’s bad behavior results from upbringing or nature, and I must confess that it is a difficult question whose resolution depends upon the subtlest of discernments...
Nevertheless, I maintain that his character is the result of a combination of these two separate things: his nature and upbringing...would you not agree?
I think about what is a man, quite a lot these days. For me, a man is measured by his deeds, not his thoughts.
I have a work mate who shakes everyone hand, looks them in the eye and says hello. Every morning at work, to everyone. He's the hardest worker, well experienced and always laser focused. Everyone know him as a well respected individual. It turns out he's skitzofrenic, and hears voices nearly every 5 minutes. He shakes people's hands so he can prove the voices wrong. He also works hard so he can avoid giving them attention. At his worst, they told him to smash his partners face to peices, but he takes medication and knows to live a busy lifestyle, taking the kids out to the park or fishing etc.
Knowing his dark secrets, I still believe he is a very respectable person. Just as respectable as someone who doesn't hear voices, but still works hard. The thoughts are not important, what matters is a person's actions.
Parents and teachers can come up with all sorts of justifications for beating kids up ...
They were all gathered around the table, aunts and uncles and cousins, etc., the whole extended family, one day for dinner at grandma’s house. Grandma, of course, had prepared the meal, and had long gray hair she kept tied up in a bun on the back of her head...
Suddenly my brother, a wee tot, raised a long gray hair up into the air with his fingers out of the midst of his plate, and exclaimed, “there’s a hair in my food!”; just as suddenly, Mama’s open palm descended on the unsuspecting child’s cheek with a “pop”: “Don’t EVER say you have a hair in your food!” she angrily replied.
I don’t think Mama ever really apologized to him for this, and he held it as a grudge against her the rest of her life, though he always loved her dearly.
In acting the way she did, my mama certainly lost her temper and acted inappropriately: her child had just shamed her in front of everyone, and she reacted thoughtlessly, lost her cool...
On the other hand, my brother needed to be corrected for transgressing a social barrier. What Mama should have done was take him aside and explain to him in private that what he did offended his grandma, and that he should have dropped the hair silently on the floor and continued eating...
If after being warned in this way he had repeated the offense at some future time well, then punishment, not just warning, would have been called for, for a recalcitrant nature that is hard of learning. Whether such punishment be corporal or non-corporal is of little concern: a “grounding” or withdrawal of privileges can be as painful as a slap in the face or a paddle-stroke on the posterior.
The key thing, as Benji hints at, is that the punishment be delivered out of love, that is, desire for the correction of your child; not out of anger...
...it is said that Plato once got so angry at one of his slave’s bad behavior that he grabbed a whip and lifted into the air to strike him...sometime later, one of his friends happened along and, finding him poised like a statue, whip hanging and no one else in sight, asked, “what, dear Plato, are you ever doing?”, to which the philosopher replied, “I’m punishing an angry man.”
This shows exceptional strength and will on his part. I also agree that the internal mind can highly mismatch external reality without there being a behavioural/ acted link. But I would imagine it takes the greatest effort to avoid being manipulated by your own mind
I think the word “beating” and “punishing” in the context we are speaking of need to be disassociated. One can be reprimanded non physically (Verbally/ or a privilege subtracting threat - for example “if you don’t do X you won’t be allowed Y for a week) and
even in such cases as the traditional sense they are punished with a “slap on the wrist” which is designed to inflict enough pain to act as a warning/ negative association but not enough to cause severe harm, there is a huge difference between “beating - which leaves permanent physical damage as well as eliciting extreme pain responses that are detrimental to the psychology of the child” and comes from uncontrolled anger and aggression and a “slap” associated with “don’t ever cross the road without holding my hand do you understand?” Out of fear and concern.
Children are forever learning to avoid things because it hurt them: they accidentally burnt their hand or hurt their knee when they fell from running too fast or got a splinter because they fell from a height on a tree. Pain is a natural bodily boundary between that which is safe and that which is not.
The issue really is that it’s extremely difficult to establish whether a parent was too forceful or whether it was appropriate to the situation. I personally would always try to speak to my child and give them the opportunity to understand verbally but if it were something extremely dangerous that they did and they weren’t responding to verbal threats a bit of protective pain (Not damaging harm) may be appropriate.