Choose Wisely

We have exhausted the subject of voluntary and involuntary and since we are interested in virtue, choice would be next. It is a part of our voluntary actions as we have described previously but things that are voluntary aren't always by our choice such as knee jerk reactions and things that are unpleasant. We do what is necessary, so voluntarily actions are not always by choice.

So what is this thing called choice? Could it be our cravings, our passions, desires or opinions? A weak willed person will always follow his cravings like an animal but a strong willed person will make choices against his cravings. We can’t say that appetites or cravings are choices because they have to do with pleasure and pain. Choice has the ability to ignore both and to do what is beneficial.

Maybe choice is a passion like anger. But we have said in the past that we can control them to some extent but passions themselves rise in us outside our choices. We can only choose to channel them properly.

Can it be that our desires or wishes are actions by choice? They seem to come the closest so far but something that is impossible isn't a choice. We might want our team to win, or to stay young forever but the things we see as ideal aren't choices but ideals. Choice concerns things that a person has control over and is achievable. We wish to be healthy and wish to be happy but until we take action and change what is under our power they remain only wishful thinking.

Opinions are used in a broad sense but in reality they can only be true or false. People try to have opinions toward eternal things and impossible things but they have to be either true or false, otherwise it is a baseless opinion. We cannot call opinions good or bad but choices are distinguished by good and bad.

Our character is determined by our actions and not our opinions. By simply asserting an opinion about a matter we are not making choices. A choice can only be right an opinion can be true.  Opinions can only be true or false they cannot be good or bad, right or wrong. Our choices produce actions that are right or wrong, good or bad and these things determine character.

Choices are voluntary actions concerned with an objective. Are all our choices based solely on deliberation? We know that they do take thought and they follow principles. A choice is the act of deciding for one thing over other things that are available. We will examine deliberation closer next time.. 

Enjoy Life

Let’s complete an outline for the next area: Voluntary acts can be incidental and we do numerous things without thinking. We also have to eat and do other things out of necessity that don’t require a lot of deliberation. Choice has an objective in mind and how we plan on going about accomplishing it. The focus is on deliberation and that is what we do when we make choices. Now we all have wishes or dreams. They are similar to choices but the difference is that wishes are always pleasurable and that is why we enjoy them. The outcome can be however we like. Choices affect our lives good or bad and so we think about where they lead in depth before acting on them. We may have hope for a particular object but need to incrementally make choices that lead in that direction. Choices have to do with the realities of a situation and the best way to go about things. Sometimes radical change is forced on us and our wishes have to be adjusted. Quite a few builders in the last few years experienced that. I heard a message recently about survival in a concentration camp. The trait that kept people alive was one of keeping up hope for a bigger cause. Those who lost it would either become bitter and mean or would fall into depression and die. Choices, however incremental, along with dreams of something better, seems to be a foundation for human happiness. That is why we are studying it in detail and so hopefully it stays interesting for you all. Organizing our thoughts keeps them from getting away from us and allows us to enjoy the good things in life. We can dream, see reality clearly, make good choices and enjoy life.        

We Need a Volunteer

A person is wicked when he is ignorant of what ought to have been done and also what ought not to have been done. Acts that are done by commission or omission are what we focus on in general and call bad or unjust. They have to be justified in a person’s head somehow. But how do we tell the difference between acts that are voluntary and those that are involuntary? If the person was expecting a reward, it is usually considered voluntary. If a person claims ignorance for what is obvious to any normal person, we would still lean toward considering it a voluntary act.  Rather than depending on generalities, we have to be specific to determine if an action deserves pity or pardon since the person might not grasp that certain actions are causing a problem. There are details that everyone is ignorant of and so finding these out is critical so the acts can be dealt with properly.

Concerning these particulars, we will do well to study and find out what they are all about: There are numerous areas a person may be ignorant; his identity, actions, who is affected, how they are affected, what the tool he is using is capable of, the intensity of application. For a person not to know any of these things he would have to be crazy. Of course a person knows his identity and knows what he is doing, but the effect isn't always known. A person might unknowingly hurt someone through words and deeds. A slip of the tongue, improper use of equipment, or unintentional results can all be interpreted as a wicked act from the onset but on closer examination found to be committed by mistake only. A boxer might hit too hard during sparring. But this kind of mistake will make the person feel bad and apologize.

We also give a person a break who was forced to do something against his will or wasn't aware of the ramifications. Voluntary acts originate with the doer when he is aware of the particulars. What about acts done by anger or appetite? We presume that these things are controllable. Although children and even animals are driven more by them, we expect them to use temperance. If an act is worthy of honor by forgoing appetite and anger we give honor to it. That means dishonorable behavior has its ramifications. So there has to be a voluntary element to appetites. Also there are certain things we should eat and certain things we should be angry about. That means we aren't helpless with these. The things that are involuntary are things that cause us sorrow and appetites fulfill desires. There is little difference between a mistake made in anger and one committed by negligence. We want to avoid both. The irrational passions that rise up in us are as human as the rational part that influences our decision making process to cause action. So it wouldn't make sense to treat them as involuntary. The subject of voluntary and involuntary actions must need more clarity. This leads us to the subject of choice. Believe it or not, choice and voluntary actions are not the same thing. How are they different? Next time…    

Me an Ignoramus?

Some make sweeping claims of ignorance. But ignorance has different faces. We all have blind spots. Everyone has areas of deception. If we knew about all of them, no one would be deceived. No one can claim to have all knowledge. But we can all learn. The areas that are the most important to examine first would be those we are ignorant about obviously. But what is ignorance and how do we peel it back? That is what the next section is about.

Not all things we do out of ignorance are involuntary. One determining factor is how we react after receiving the knowledge. If a person lacks remorse he might as well have done it on purpose. So it seems that behavior after the fact contributes to what is voluntary. We don’t really have a name for a person who is was ignorant but shows no remorse when understanding is given. There are also different kinds of acts out of ignorance. If a person claim to be unaware, it could be that there was no knowledge at all or that a person was impaired at the time such as when one is drunk or in a rage.

Are people inherently bad or are they just acting out of ignorance? It is a good question. Those who blatantly do wrong justify their actions and consider them good somehow. So it can be said that they are ignorant. People get hung up on origins on who’s to blame for their blatant acts. Was it the parents, a past event or the “sin” nature? Are some people simply born bad? To go deeply into that subject requires a lot of speculation and opinion. We are interested in what can be studied and clearly seen. If what was done was done on purpose, there has to be reasoning behind it. That is what we are looking into next: The wicked person. When we use the word person in this study, we really mean persona. They lurk within all of us. So we are talking about ourselves and it adds to the fun..   

Unconditional

When we are talking about responsibility, we are really addressing two areas, the areas within a person that is open for improvement (excellence) and also what is fair in our interactions with others. As for our interactions with others, their types and degrees we will discuss later. This isn't about if God is out there waiting to pounce on someone for wrongdoing. Ethics in this book acknowledges that there must be a lawgiver for there to be standards, but Aristotle refuses to speculate on who he is or how he looks at our actions. 

Even within Christianity, there are degrees of opinion; Some say that God redeemed the whole world once, some say that a person needs to simply acknowledge Christ once, along with those who obsess and judge every act as though he is cringing at or blessing every moment we live. But love without freedom cannot be love. Although it is necessary for us to give up some of our own wants to have any kind of a relationship, I tend to look at God as one who gave us a will and enjoys when we do well with it. Unfortunately, the environment we live in can be hazardous, there are good fortunes and those who hit hard times. There are eras of war and regions of hatred. These make the same point that Aristotle does. Happiness is found in the soul and not externally. Without hardship there would be no triumph. 

I certainly don’t ascribe to the doctrine that God teaches us by making bad things happen. I also don’t believe he rescues us by making good things happen. Who is worse, an arrogant wealthy person or a bitter poor person; a overzealous religious nut or a vagabond? Who would you consider blessed?

When our confidence is that we are loved unconditionally, we are at our best, both at work or play.  And the next principle is like it; as we recognize the value in ourselves we will see the value in others. The parable of the widow’s mite comes to mind. While the wealthy were giving large amounts, this woman gave all she had. This was pointed out by Jesus as a much larger gift. We can’t get hung up on comparisons but every one of us is valuable, and it doesn't depend on external goods or those we know. We all have opportunities to treat ourselves well and proper and we should do the same for those around us. We should appreciate and emulate those who are good at it. Everything, except true friendships, according to Solomon is vanity.  Nothing lasts, everything is redundant…this isn't a bad thing; there is plenty of room for creativity and conquest if we stay confident and caring while doing things with those who care too. It all begins within our soul..    

A Victim of Circumstances

We say that an act is compulsory when a person is helpless and someone else is pulling the strings. But if we examine it closer, we have to ask what the person got out of it. If it was a gift rather than some kind of extortion, the act would be considered voluntary. It really depends on the particulars for a person to be considered a victim.

A person might be able to say that some kind of pleasure took over or some kind of righteous cause compelled him to do it as an easy way to avoid responsibility. A person given to this way of thinking will take credit for the things that make him look good as though they were voluntary while passing blame for things that make him look bad as though they were involuntary. In reality, the things forced on us that we hate and the things we do by mistake that we feel bad about later are compulsory. When the compulsion comes wholly from outside forces and the person didn't have anything to do with planning; he is justifiably called a victim.  

When ignorance is claimed is it always an involuntary act? Ignorance is only an excuse when there is repentance involved. A person who unwittingly does something and then refuses to acknowledge that it was wrong certainly isn't a victim. Can a person who is drunk or in a rage use the excuse of ignorance and claim to be a victim of his own actions?  A little intrigue until next time…

Not My Fault

So far we have concluded that when passions and actions are combined, the result is considered good or bad; virtue or vice. But are we always responsible for our actions? Was it done on purpose? This is important for us to recognize in order to deal with our souls realistically and is of vital importance for our laws. If we are going to either punish someone or honor them, it has to be justified. Even though some actions are wrong, we pity those who did them involuntarily. There are two classifications of involuntary actions: compulsion due to ignorance and compulsion from an outside source. A person might either be carried along by the wind or be forced to act by men who had them in their power.

Some might reason, “I was submitting to a cause” or “I was under a threat” and we might consider their acts involuntary. Each case can be debated. Sometimes an act appears justified because the person was under duress. A person of good character might have to violate his own principles because of extenuating circumstance. For a wartime spy or to preserve life, the actions are noble according to what side you are on. There is still a choice involved and we can say the act was done on purpose although there is kind of an involuntary characteristic too. But we can say that if the outside influence wasn't there, the person wouldn't have committed the act.

We praise people as heroes who endure pain for a great and noble cause. The opposite is true also. A person who endures pain for something that is worthless is considered a fool. But if someone falls apart under pressure that no one could handle, we feel sorry for them. But endurance for most things is expected of a noble person. There are perceived limits to endurance and what is worth suffering for. For certain things we should endure hardship until death and at any cost. But these things vary by person and their culture.  We can say that these causes and compulsions cause an internal struggle because living up to what is expected can be painful and the acts are what we wouldn't normally do. Those who live up to them are praised and those who don’t are blamed. 

So how do we figure out what was done on purpose and what was really forced on a person? Next time…… 

Getting it Straight

When we talk about moral virtue, we are focusing on what makes the human soul work at its highest potential. The soul was designed for happiness and that is our objective. Virtuous behavior lies between two extremes we call vices. Virtue therefore is an intermediate between excess and defect. It is not easy to hit this target but it is very easy to miss. Anyone can get angry or spend money. But it is much harder to apply it to the right person, to the right amount, in the right way, at the right time, with the right motive. This makes goodness a rarity and something that is appreciated and admired.

Sometimes in order to hit the target, we have to over-correct. We can’t expect perfection due to the difficulty of the task. Our desires can carry us in the wrong directions. But we can also make our lives miserable by beating ourselves up all the time. Sometimes an over-correction is good to pull ourselves back where we belong, but it shouldn't be necessary all the time. It takes extra effort to straighten a bent rod but once it is strait the job is done.

Although pleasure isn't always a bad thing, it is always what we gravitate towards. That is why we have to pay attention to what brings us pleasure and what its effect will be on our lives. A person who is dismissive about this gets in trouble. As much as we hate it, we have to watch pleasure suspiciously so it doesn't lead us astray. We avoid the painful things automatically.

Each individual case is different and finding the mean at times is a matter of perception between two parties. We want someone to be manly by using anger but might also call them rash and bad tempered. How long and with what intensity should we use our anger? The person who doesn't deviate from good is never blamed but a person who deviates is noticed and even admired for it at times. But how far of a deviation is allowed before he is in violation? It all depends on particular facts and perceptions. We can say however that the middle is always safest place: Don’t be a coward or bad tempered. Sometimes we see that pushing the limits is needed but there are boundaries to pushing the limits that we call “crossing the line”. A person can either lighten up or man up. These same properties are seen in all our passions.

We are now done with book 2 of Ethics.   

I would like to say to my Christian friends that understanding this used to be required for anyone to become a leader in the community. I became interested through writings of our founders and C.S. Lewis. Our post-modern church teaching focuses on quick fixes such as revivals and deliverance. Even in public schools, experiences and exposure are more important than understanding principles. The focus of education used to be ordered thoughts and creating a society that is not easily deceived. Maybe I was born in the wrong era but this is like organizing the most important toolbox, our minds…   

Extreme

We have been discussing the best application of the different states and actions that proceed from our souls. There are excesses, deficiencies and the mean. The mean can be considered “right” or the niche where our thoughts and actions will do us and those we interact with the most good. We are starting with passions.  

We don’t consider shame a virtue, but at the same time, we admire a modest person. So even with modesty there is a deficiency which would be a bashful person who is afraid of everything while an unashamed person can be perverse and indiscreet. Of course the mean would be a modest person. Even indignation has its extremes. Righteous indignation is angered at undeserved fortune. A person who is envious dislikes the good fortunes of others. Someone who is spiteful thinks that unjust gain is great as long as it goes to the person he favors.  Justice can be complex due to the many applications.

When fairness is decided between two people, they are agreeing to a standard or a mean that they both assent to. This is what we mean by justice, In a murder trial, making it right or “justice,” depends on a number of things. It could have been self-defense, there could have been mental issues, it may have been an accident or negligence all the way up to premeditated murder. There is no way to make killing another person a good thing and so there is no mean or niche where it is good, but killing does have degrees. When it is for public safety such as during an invasion or to rid society of a hazard in the absence of jails, the argument can be made for the good but even then we look at it as a very sad thing.

We can go deeper into the states of mind and passions: It is interesting when there is a good application, it is closer to the extremes than the extremes are to each other. A brave man will seem rash to a coward and seem cowardly to a rash man. A coward is definitely a coward to a rash man but might not look so bad to a brave man. A prodigal might appear closer to being liberal than someone who is stingy. We can call things that are at the actual extremes, contraries. The niche or “right”, will at times be closer to either extreme. For instance, cowardice is more opposed to courage than rashness. So cowardice is further than rashness is from the right application, courage.  So most times people consider cowardice the opposite rather than an extreme.  This applies to pleasure. We consider self-indulgence opposite to temperance because most people fall short in this area.  But in reality, being frigid and paranoid is the other extreme to pleasure.

Speaking of self-indulgence, I have a date with the beach, so have a good day!

Friend or Flatterer

Lets continue looking at things that have and excess, deficiency and the niche; I remember a term “in the groove”. That is the place we are talking about. The place that each passion and the resulting action does the most good. Virtue isn’t a moral word in these applications. It means that point when something is completing its purpose at its very best. A car that runs well can be considered virtuous according to this definition. The ultimate function of a person’s soul is to bring happiness along with external goods. So that is why it is important to examine areas of the soul and where this niche of virtue can be found. We have already concluded that happiness in the soul comes by virtue. So let’s examine this not as a matter of condemnation but as a way to recognize things we can adjust to bring the most happiness to our souls.

Using anger as an example, it has all three areas. We call a person who is intermediate or has found the right niche, good tempered. We would call a person who is in excess a jerk. A person who is deficient is passive or uncaring. There are a lot of expletives that are used for people with an excess of anger for sure.

Here are a few more areas that are good examples but according to words and actions; A truthful person found the niche and is truthful about himself for the most part. Someone who exaggerates or is boastful would be one extreme and one who fakes modesty and understates is the other extreme. A person who amuses us would be considered pleasant and quick witted while one excess is a buffoon or an idiot (annoyance) and someone who falls short would be considered boring. His state would be considered boorish or a kill joy. This works also in friendliness. There are flatterers, those who are only after advantage at one extreme and the one that falls short is unpleasant and quarrelsome. Of course the niche is to be a true friend.

Next time we will examine passions along with their extremes. These are really interesting, but it is sunny out and the good weather is calling me outside. See you after a while….