Kevin's Watch

George Carlin and my sister got me thinking on this one. If you don't do something but you really 'wanna' is it still bad. Or does the 'wanna' only come into play when you are doing something. If you are forced to do something but you don't 'wanna' or something like that.

Hmmm, an interesting question. I often argue this with my GF, who takes sort of a Buddhist perspective usually. Essentially, I think you're asking whether or not the simple desire to commit an action is as "bad" as actually committing it.

I think that "wanting" to do something is not the issue. If you want to, but still don't, I think that the "negative" implication is overcome. In fact, I think that it's even more "positive" to overcome that desire, and not do something, than it is to never have the "negative" desire at all.

The GF disagrees, she thinks that the simple act of desiring to do something negative is as bad, or almost as bad, as doing it at all. The goal of "perfection" being to not even have those negative thoughts.

Now I'm not so lenient when it comes to doing something that you don't want to. As far as I'm concerned, it's the action which counts. You can always choose not to do something. Doing it if you "don't want to" means ignoring what you "know" to be right.

Of course, there are different ways of looking at it. As an easy example, forcing someone Jewish to eat a piece of pork does NOT count as a sin, according to Judaism. The "sin" rests on he who forced you. The idea is great, when it comes to dietary law, but I'm not sure the same could be applied to murder.

I have more respect for the person who overcomes his "negative" desires, than I do for the person who never has them. So just "wanting" to do something "bad" is, for me, nowhere near as bad as actually doing it.

--Avatar

Let's see if I can totally avoid the determinism argument in response to this question
First of all, I agree with avatar DEFINATELY as far as the desire to do something negative, and then overcoming it, being even more positive than not desiring it at all, because not desiring it has a theoretically 'neutral' value to it, whereas a defeat of a negative desire that was already there has to be looked at as a victory.

The catholics (And the buddhists I guess?) are very clear about this. I'm not sure how other christians feel about it. The desire to do something is definately a very bad thing, and shameful in itself, and worthy of punishment.

I disagree because people have no direct choice to experience a desire. The desire happens to them. If there's any choice in the matter, its the response to it. We should only be judged by our choices, imho.

I agree. Obviously.

The Buddhists aren't as harsh as the Catholics though. IIRC, they just think that if you were "good/perfect/whatever" you wouldn't have those desires/thoughts, which I can agree with. They see them as obstacles to "perfection".

I definitely agree that it is our actions that should be what we are judged upon.

--A

Surely how you deal with desires is what qualifies your worth as a character? That's all that there is to it for me. Most desires are perfectly natural, even extreme ones; what you do with them, that's the real fulcrum. I think you wrap yourself in knots if you start doling out guilt for having desires in the first place - that to me is typically sanctimonious and the type of behaviour that winds me up about religions.

IT really MAKES ME WANNA.................. AND AND ;sldfknm;huehznvznljkznk the BAST..........

but I don't, and that's my point.

I think that there's a certain amount of stratifaction in what I might term "darker desires", and how we deal with them.

My belief is that the best case is not to have such feelings, but to do so and to master them is also meritorious. But when you start harbouring such feelings, or fantasising about something that you know is wrong, you are getting into more moraly dubious territory...not as bad as doing the deed might be, but still putting something of a stain on your character nevertheless.

But that's just my

I'm inclined to agree that not having the desire to do something you know to be wrong is better than having the desire and overcoeming it, though that also has plenty of merit.

I completely agree with Gart; there's a vast difference between feeling a momentary impulse toward an act of evil, and rejecting it - and actually constructing and mentally replaying a fantasy of an evil act, even if you never act on it. Though chances are: you more you live in the fantasy, the likelier the chance of actually acting on it.

Edge wrote:...Though chances are: you more you live in the fantasy, the likelier the chance of actually acting on it.

On the one hand, I agree that there is a difference between momentary impulses and actively constructing elaborate fantasies, I'm not sure that it is a "vast" one.

Also, I could argue that fantasies such as you mention may perform a "cathartic" function, and make it less likely that the person will attempt them in reality. (Of course, the opposite could be equally true.)

Still, as I said, the real "worth" becomes apparent in a persons success at not acting on them. It's all too easy to give in to impulse for most people. Not doing it is far harder.

--Avatar

Well, I can say I have quite a few awful thoughts on a daily basis, and so far I haven't done anything really bad I hope....
Although I think I have felt the strain on my character at times, never to the point that it has even bordered on doing anything remotely as bad as my worst thoughts... I think I Would be much worse if I repressed my desires without acknowledging them. One thing that helps is voicing those desires to someone else... things have less of an impact on you internally if others know of them, I think

I've found that the only reason I don't act on some of my 'dark' impulses is because of what I would suffer from society as a result. Not because of personal conscience/guilt.
On the other hand there are things my conscience would prevent me from doing that society wouldn't mind.

Avatar wrote:Still, as I said, the real "worth" becomes apparent in a persons success at not acting on them. It's all too easy to give in to impulse for most people. Not doing it is far harder.

--Avatar

I totally agree with that. But to back up your GF,

Avatar wrote:The GF disagrees, she thinks that the simple act of desiring to do something negative is as bad, or almost as bad, as doing it at all. The goal of "perfection" being to not even have those negative thoughts.

This person (not having negative thoughts) would be less likely to commit an act... or would they? Is it that this person has rejected negative thought or has just never been "witness" to negativity? And is one who has never been exposed to said negativity not more at risk of not being able to reject the emotions and after effects that exposure. In essence "corrupting" them?

I think there's two answers for this, depending on the nature of the thought.... does one secretly relish in the dark fantasies? Or the negative thoughts? If one is only telling themselves that they are disgusted, but constantly replays the ideas to themselves, then I believe that person is on a downward spiral (as long as the thought is ACTUALLY negative, and not just conditioned as negative to the thinker).
If someone thinks negative thoughts and then TRULY decides that they are negative, they will condition themselves against the thoughts based on how they feel. No repressed pleasure, no continuation of thought.

That's how its been for me anyway, and I've gone from the first to the second through self therapy on a few occasions.

lhaughlhann wrote:This person (not having negative thoughts) would be less likely to commit an act... or would they? Is it that this person has rejected negative thought or has just never been "witness" to negativity? And is one who has never been exposed to said negativity not more at risk of not being able to reject the emotions and after effects that exposure. In essence "corrupting" them?

An excellent question, and one which I shall put to her as soon as I'm home. I would guess that this is a person who has witnessed, and rejected, negativity.

If I recall the story of Buddha correctly, he was a prince who was raised in utter seclusion, because a wise man had prophesised that if he ever saw pain, death, suffering etc, he would become a religious leader, but if he didn't, he would become a great king and warrior.

His father did his best to protect him from exposure to such negativity, but, as children do, he circumvented his fathers controls, and was exposed to everything his father was trying to protect him from. As a result, he denounced his upbringing, and became a philosopher.

I too have had, and still have, many dark impulses. Perhaps because I'm not "naturally" a good person. I don't feel guilt, I don't feel other people's pain. I have the potential to become, (or rather, I had the potential to remain), a truly "bad" person.

But I made a conscious moral choice to behave "better". To be more tolerant, more understanding, more considerate. No subconcious "fear" drives me to act this way, no fear of societies disapproval, of people's opinions. Instead, I made a choice to live in a way that seems "morally right" to me, based on my descision of how the world should work.

I "wanna" very often. But I don't. Sometimes, (especially when it will benefit me), the "wanting" is very strong. But I don't. I choose not to.

If karma is based on your thoughts, rather than your actions, then I'm definitely coming back as a lower life-form. But my actions, I can control.

--Avatar

Of course, our judgement of our darkest impulses will be so deeply in the realm of subjectivity that trying to look at them objectively becomes next to impossible. At least, that's how it works for me.

Do you mean our assessment of how dark they (those impulses) are?

Looked at objectively, those impulses are pretty meaningless. They only can only have any value, positive or negative, based on our own subjectivity.

--Avatar

Well, there's subjective, and then there's SUBJECTIVE. (I understand how ridiculous that sounds, but bear with me)
If someone has a negative impulse that they fixate on, or totally submerge, due to either the negative consequences of the action, or the shame of having the thought in the first place, often those things grow in the eyes of the person doing the fixating until they are way outside the bounds of what most people would feel about the origional idea.

This compounds as people either avoid or concentrate on the idea, until it's like this giant mountain of shame and darkness in your subconscious, when in fact it was very minor to begin with. This can be DISASTEROUS.

For example, let's say someone gets married, and thinks that they will never have feelings of a romantic nature for anyone else, ever again. But lo! they do! Now these feelings could be experienced and resolved quickly, by acknowledging them and then deciding that the ramnifications of having an affair or leaving their wife would be much worse than the benefits involved (or the opposite, I suppose). But this person has no prior experience to this, doesn't know that the vast majority of people have to go through this, and thinks he is a 'freak' for having the urge in the first place. So he tells no one, but still thinks about it. It becomes this secret sort of shame/fantasy, and can spiral out of control until it's acted upon.

Or maybe this is all just in my head? Either way, I think it happens like that a lot. If you've ever talked to someone with a lot of repression associated with shame, and you actually get them to talk about the idea or event directly, often it is almost trivial in comparison to the pain/shame the person is putting themselves through.

JemCheeta wrote:...If you've ever talked to someone with a lot of repression associated with shame, and you actually get them to talk about the idea or event directly, often it is almost trivial in comparison to the pain/shame the person is putting themselves through.

This is very true, and not even in the extremes about which we are talking. People have the incredible ability to make mountains out of molehills in their heads, and perhaps for the very reason mentioned: The attempt to not think about it.

The worst punishments are often the ones we inflict on ourselves, all unrealising.

--Avatar

I know this kinda died a little but I thought of something. The Commandment that says Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife. Wouldn't it kinda fit there.

material sin: an action which is contrary to Divine law, but not known to be such by the agent.

internal sins: by outward deeds but also by the inner activity of the mind apart from any external manifestation. such as coveting.

the three types of internal sin.

delectatiomorosa: pleasure taken in a sinful thought even if one does not desire it.

gaudium: dwelling with complacency on sins already committed.

desiderium: desiring that which is sinful.

thanks to the Catholic encyclopedia.