Second Letter To Isla
Dear Isla:
A year has past since last I wrote to you. For you, I am sure it has been a year of growth and exploration. For the world we all live in and that you will inherit, it has been a year of tremendous change. The people's desire for freedom has overwhelmed the dictatorial governments of the Soviet Block countries, causing political, economic, and social changes as fundamental as any in the long history of Europe. Although some risk remains, it seems the possibility of general war in Europe is less than at any time since I was your age, and we can, perhaps, look forward to a long period of peace and increasing prosperity in the East.
Which brings us to the subject of this second letter: What is desire and what role does it play in human ethics?
Understanding human desire begins by understanding that, at the most basic level, all living things have desires. A seed from the most humble garden weed "desires" to sprout and grow. Wild animals "desire" food and water. Forest trees "desire" the sun and, in seeking it, will shape their growth. Perhaps the most dramatic example of desire in nature is the breeding habit of salmon that drives the species to exhaust themselves swimming miles and miles against quick-flowing, river currents to reach a particular place to spawn. In this basic sense, desire is seen as the engine that drives all living things to fulfill themselves.
Desire, then, is a natural attribute that humans hold in common with all creatures and plants. Because human desire is God given (natural), it cannot be ethically wrong to possess a particular desire. I should point out that ethics concerns only deeds, so that, there are no unethical thoughts or feelings only unethical behavior. We are allowed our private thoughts and feelings, whatever they may be.
Such was not always the case. In times past, our society (lead by the church) believed that the mere feeling of certain desires was a sin, that some thoughts and feelings were wrong and base even if one did not act upon them. Today, we know better. But, because you may come across a person who still believes such nonsense, it is important for you to understand that you are free to privately hold any desire, feeling, or thought whatsoever. The workings of your mind are fee of any guilt; you are accountable only for your behavior resulting from these workings.
Human desires can be categorized as those belonging to the primeval beast and those belonging to the civilized being in all of us. The primeval desires such as preservation of self, food, sex, love, revenge, and security are probably encoded in our genes. The more complex desires such as freedom; peer acceptance; intellectual, athletic, and social achievement; and material acquisition are probably impressed upon the individual by our society. But whatever the source, several things can be said about all desires. First, desires set goals for each individual and, in so doing, give purpose, meaning, and direction to the individual's life. Second, an individual's specific set of desires is probably unique and, thus, tend to differentiate one human from another. Finally, converting a desire from a feeling to overt action ought to be an intellectual process involving selection of alternatives and weighing of potential consequences.
Although the first and second aspects are of philosophical interest, it is the third aspect of desire that is of ethical importance because it is the one that concerns the behavior of the individual within society.
Which brings us to the heart of the matter and to the central question of ethics that has been debated since antiquity. That is: If desires give meaning to each individual's life and are unique to that individual, is each individual therefore free to pursue a course of action leading to the fulfillment of his or her desires without regard to the effect of that action upon other individuals, and if not, by what standard does one determine the ethical course of action?
There is no definitive answer. Each society in each age has had to answer the question for itself. I can only share with you the moral principles by which I live and hope that they will serve you as well in your age as they have served me in mine.
Essentially, one is free to undertake a course of action leading to satisfaction of some desire only: (a) when the action will not adversely affect yourself, (b) when the action will not adversely affect another individual or group, and (c) when you are not under an obligation to forego such action.
The first condition is easily explained by noting, for example, that in fulfilling the desire for food, one ought not to pursue the desire to the point of obesity and endangerment of one's health. Sounds trivial until one considers that this is the precise reason that the sale and use of drugs is fundamentally immoral. Pursuit of pleasure at the expense of your health is not acceptable behavior.
The second condition gives rise to the notion of social courtesy and recognizes that, since we humans must all live together on this earth, the quality of life for everyone will be better if each individual's actions show consideration for all others. It is consideration for others that causes the ethical person, for example, to forego shoving their way through crowds, going to the head of a queue to avoid waiting, to avoid making loud noises when others are sleeping, and all the other hundreds of small courtesies that come under the heading of good manners.
Make no mistake, although these examples seem trivial, good manners are fundamental in gaining initial social and professional acceptance. When first we interact with new friends or colleagues, we are judged as much by our manners as we are by any other standard, for good manners are considered to be the visible sign of much deeper ethical convictions. That is not to say that scoundrels cannot have good manners, the fact that they often do has been the subject of some England's greatest literature. What can be said, is that people with good manners are more readily accepted and trusted than those whose behavior is self-centered and impolite.
During the past ten years, violation of the second condition has become so wide spread in urban United States that the decade of the 80's has been categorized by social philosophers as the Decade of Greed resulting from the rise of the Me-First Generation who follow the philosophy of Taking Care of Number One. I hesitate to predict whether this breakdown in America's social fabric will have reached the United Kingdom by the time you read this letter. If it has, then so much the better for you, since your good manners will undoubtedly cause you to be much in social demand.
Finally, there is the condition of obligation which is, at the same time, the most important of the three and the most difficult to live by, for from this condition, arises the notions of duty and personal honor. The obligation of duty arises when I, for example, agree to come to your flat at 1500 and help you move your things to a new flat. Having told you I will help you, I am obliged to do so because you are depending upon me. As an ethical person, I cannot later change my mind and not help you. I cannot make up some excuse and not appear. If for any reason I cannot come, then I am obliged to send someone else in my place because duty are those actions that you have promised or sworn to perform and that others depend upon you to perform. One must either perform the duty or find someone to perform it in your place.
The notion of personal honor arises from the willingness to assume and discharge the obligations of duty regardless of the cost to yourself. When I was a young man I married just before entering college. My wife worked and supported both of us for four years while I attended university. When I left the university and began my profession as an engineer, my wife quit work and I supported her while she attempted to further her career as an actress. It soon became obvious to me that we were growing apart and should divorce. However, because she had supported me for four years while I received the education that made my career possible, I felt it was my duty to support her until her career was established. I came to hate the life she lead and longed to be free of her and her theatrical friends. I felt that she had to initiate divorce proceedings, as an honorable person I could not. Fortunately, she soon did ask for divorce and I was free to leave and get on with my life.
The point is that affairs of honor are never any fun, and obligations involving your honor should not be entered into lightly. My mistake was not only in marrying too young, but also in accepting four years of financial support and the attendant moral obligation to repay it in kind. From this experience I learned to consider all the potential costs to me of becoming obligated to someone else. You would do well to learn from my experience.
With that, Isla, I will end my second letter to you. Until next January, I wish you a good and happy year.
Your loving Godfather,
A year has past since last I wrote to you. For you, I am sure it has been a year of growth and exploration. For the world we all live in and that you will inherit, it has been a year of tremendous change. The people's desire for freedom has overwhelmed the dictatorial governments of the Soviet Block countries, causing political, economic, and social changes as fundamental as any in the long history of Europe. Although some risk remains, it seems the possibility of general war in Europe is less than at any time since I was your age, and we can, perhaps, look forward to a long period of peace and increasing prosperity in the East.
Which brings us to the subject of this second letter: What is desire and what role does it play in human ethics?
Understanding human desire begins by understanding that, at the most basic level, all living things have desires. A seed from the most humble garden weed "desires" to sprout and grow. Wild animals "desire" food and water. Forest trees "desire" the sun and, in seeking it, will shape their growth. Perhaps the most dramatic example of desire in nature is the breeding habit of salmon that drives the species to exhaust themselves swimming miles and miles against quick-flowing, river currents to reach a particular place to spawn. In this basic sense, desire is seen as the engine that drives all living things to fulfill themselves.
Desire, then, is a natural attribute that humans hold in common with all creatures and plants. Because human desire is God given (natural), it cannot be ethically wrong to possess a particular desire. I should point out that ethics concerns only deeds, so that, there are no unethical thoughts or feelings only unethical behavior. We are allowed our private thoughts and feelings, whatever they may be.
Such was not always the case. In times past, our society (lead by the church) believed that the mere feeling of certain desires was a sin, that some thoughts and feelings were wrong and base even if one did not act upon them. Today, we know better. But, because you may come across a person who still believes such nonsense, it is important for you to understand that you are free to privately hold any desire, feeling, or thought whatsoever. The workings of your mind are fee of any guilt; you are accountable only for your behavior resulting from these workings.
Human desires can be categorized as those belonging to the primeval beast and those belonging to the civilized being in all of us. The primeval desires such as preservation of self, food, sex, love, revenge, and security are probably encoded in our genes. The more complex desires such as freedom; peer acceptance; intellectual, athletic, and social achievement; and material acquisition are probably impressed upon the individual by our society. But whatever the source, several things can be said about all desires. First, desires set goals for each individual and, in so doing, give purpose, meaning, and direction to the individual's life. Second, an individual's specific set of desires is probably unique and, thus, tend to differentiate one human from another. Finally, converting a desire from a feeling to overt action ought to be an intellectual process involving selection of alternatives and weighing of potential consequences.
Although the first and second aspects are of philosophical interest, it is the third aspect of desire that is of ethical importance because it is the one that concerns the behavior of the individual within society.
Which brings us to the heart of the matter and to the central question of ethics that has been debated since antiquity. That is: If desires give meaning to each individual's life and are unique to that individual, is each individual therefore free to pursue a course of action leading to the fulfillment of his or her desires without regard to the effect of that action upon other individuals, and if not, by what standard does one determine the ethical course of action?
There is no definitive answer. Each society in each age has had to answer the question for itself. I can only share with you the moral principles by which I live and hope that they will serve you as well in your age as they have served me in mine.
Essentially, one is free to undertake a course of action leading to satisfaction of some desire only: (a) when the action will not adversely affect yourself, (b) when the action will not adversely affect another individual or group, and (c) when you are not under an obligation to forego such action.
The first condition is easily explained by noting, for example, that in fulfilling the desire for food, one ought not to pursue the desire to the point of obesity and endangerment of one's health. Sounds trivial until one considers that this is the precise reason that the sale and use of drugs is fundamentally immoral. Pursuit of pleasure at the expense of your health is not acceptable behavior.
The second condition gives rise to the notion of social courtesy and recognizes that, since we humans must all live together on this earth, the quality of life for everyone will be better if each individual's actions show consideration for all others. It is consideration for others that causes the ethical person, for example, to forego shoving their way through crowds, going to the head of a queue to avoid waiting, to avoid making loud noises when others are sleeping, and all the other hundreds of small courtesies that come under the heading of good manners.
Make no mistake, although these examples seem trivial, good manners are fundamental in gaining initial social and professional acceptance. When first we interact with new friends or colleagues, we are judged as much by our manners as we are by any other standard, for good manners are considered to be the visible sign of much deeper ethical convictions. That is not to say that scoundrels cannot have good manners, the fact that they often do has been the subject of some England's greatest literature. What can be said, is that people with good manners are more readily accepted and trusted than those whose behavior is self-centered and impolite.
During the past ten years, violation of the second condition has become so wide spread in urban United States that the decade of the 80's has been categorized by social philosophers as the Decade of Greed resulting from the rise of the Me-First Generation who follow the philosophy of Taking Care of Number One. I hesitate to predict whether this breakdown in America's social fabric will have reached the United Kingdom by the time you read this letter. If it has, then so much the better for you, since your good manners will undoubtedly cause you to be much in social demand.
Finally, there is the condition of obligation which is, at the same time, the most important of the three and the most difficult to live by, for from this condition, arises the notions of duty and personal honor. The obligation of duty arises when I, for example, agree to come to your flat at 1500 and help you move your things to a new flat. Having told you I will help you, I am obliged to do so because you are depending upon me. As an ethical person, I cannot later change my mind and not help you. I cannot make up some excuse and not appear. If for any reason I cannot come, then I am obliged to send someone else in my place because duty are those actions that you have promised or sworn to perform and that others depend upon you to perform. One must either perform the duty or find someone to perform it in your place.
The notion of personal honor arises from the willingness to assume and discharge the obligations of duty regardless of the cost to yourself. When I was a young man I married just before entering college. My wife worked and supported both of us for four years while I attended university. When I left the university and began my profession as an engineer, my wife quit work and I supported her while she attempted to further her career as an actress. It soon became obvious to me that we were growing apart and should divorce. However, because she had supported me for four years while I received the education that made my career possible, I felt it was my duty to support her until her career was established. I came to hate the life she lead and longed to be free of her and her theatrical friends. I felt that she had to initiate divorce proceedings, as an honorable person I could not. Fortunately, she soon did ask for divorce and I was free to leave and get on with my life.
The point is that affairs of honor are never any fun, and obligations involving your honor should not be entered into lightly. My mistake was not only in marrying too young, but also in accepting four years of financial support and the attendant moral obligation to repay it in kind. From this experience I learned to consider all the potential costs to me of becoming obligated to someone else. You would do well to learn from my experience.
With that, Isla, I will end my second letter to you. Until next January, I wish you a good and happy year.
Your loving Godfather,
posted by Bob Baker at 4:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home