It seems to me that much of our ethical discussion focusses on moments of crisis and decision, when the bulk of our lives are lived in that curious half-light of the will - habit. We have habits because we have bodies: habits are patterns of behaviour which we repeat regularly without having to think about them consciously. Our bodies like them, and we just do them. I don't consciously choose to have toast and jam with strong coffee for breakfast each morning: and yet, there we go, I do it. Am I responsible for my choice? Yes of course. And yet, I am not conscious of choosing or deciding anything much. So, yes, I do will it; but, only out of a kind of dream-state of the will.
This is not a blog-as-confessional: but I do have one bad habit I will share. I chew paper. I have done it for a while now. White A4 is best. As I am sitting working and trying to concentrate I feel the urge to chew, and not having gum around, paper stands in its place. Actually, I prefer the texture and taste of paper. It is weird how this has become habitual, to the point that I am not even really aware of deciding to do it. And yet, breaking out of a habit even as stupid as this requires a huge amount of will power.
It is because habits involve a kind of shutting down of the will that they feature so little in ethical discussion I think. Somehow, an act perfomed habitually is not as morally upright as the one which involves a more conscious decsion to do the right thing....
9 comments:
Is paper eating a jensen thing?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Paper-Eater-Liz-Jensen/dp/0747553068
Wasn't Aristotle big on virtues being trainable, and there being a link to habits there? Vague, sorry - that was an exam and four months ago.
I chew, I don't eat!
This emphasis on the will is traceable to Kant. Though Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount was interested in our inner intentions when it comes to moral actions too - the intention to kill is morally the same for him as the action of killing.
But Kant went even further saying that pretty much the only thing that mattered morally was a good will, definied in terms of our rational aspect.
Yes he was. I'll have to look at my Niomachean ethics and see exactly what he said though.
I sense that you might still be stuck in the Kantian trap by referring to the dream like state. Kant kept us in this hole because if his solipsistic ontology. Being in the world happens before knowledge - especially the self-reflexive "I want this or that" that takes up most ethical discourse. Think of it more as when you walk down the street with your children to get a treat you walk together, side by side (even holding hands). All these things are actually ethical decisions though made on the same level as "I want to put my right foot out first and then after that my left one and I will keep following this pattern until I get to the shop."
I chew, I don't eat!
aaahhhhh the 'I didn't inhale' defence
Cyberp, I was just describing the Kantian cast of our ethical prejudices rather than subscribing to it...
Somehow, an act perfomed habitually is not as morally upright as the one which involves a more conscious decsion to do the right thing....
yet an act perfomed habitually is less morally repugnant than the one which involves a more conscious decision to do the wrong thing...
Some of this relates to taking a "goods-driven" rather than a "life-driven" conception of action. In one tradition, you act in order to acquire some good (pleasure, salvation, whatever). Aristotle and Aquinas have a more "life-driven" conception: you act in accordance with a life-plan (to be virtuous, to be oriented towards God, etc). Habits make more sense in a life-driven conception.
Post a Comment