Contradictions
Like most other lives, I live mine in contradiction. I try to save paper by writing on both sides and by squeezing scribblings on the margins when both sides have been used; but I waste paper needlessly when I refuse to type out drafts on the computer, preferring instead to hand-write then type, I waste paper needlessly when I use a pen to write the simplest of notes, I waste paper needlessly when I insist on printing out stuff that I would want to read.
Is there a way to reconcile these divergent practices? Perhaps. Perhaps I can say that I work better when writing in pen, and writing drafts out on paper. But I'm not sure if that's really true, because I don't write non-fiction out on paper before I type them, and I'm not particularly uncomfortable with that arrangement. Perhaps, then, I can say I work better when writing fiction in pen and paper before typing it out. But I don't think I can say that for sure; it seems more like a matter of adaptation or the lack thereof that is stopping me from writing fiction pieces on the computer without writing them on pen and paper first. Same goes for reading heavy stuff on the computer. If I would just make the step of changing my habits perhaps I would be advocating reading stuffs on screen instead of printing them next time.
The other problem with such a defense is that it also justifies a lot of environmentally-destructive practices. If I can defend my practice of writing with pen and paper because I feel I can do work better this way, then so can the compulsive shoe-hoarder say that he owns 50 pairs of shoes because he feels he works better that way. We don't usually buy such a reason, so I don't think I can defend my practice of writing with pen and paper that way. Ultimately this means I can't reconcile my divergent practices.
Here's another example. Earlier on I was having dinner at Subway. A person was doing some homework there, occupying 1 seat when she hadn't ordered anything, and the eatery was crowded. I mentally chided her for being so inconsiderate. When I finished my meal, I didn't clear my tray even though this was explicitly requested on a sign. I didn't mentally chide myself for being inconsiderate. In fact, I felt quite happy about it.
Now, my defense for this would be to say that this is a contradiction only if one is under the assumption that we must adhere to the moral standards we peg others to. In other words, that we must always practice what we preach. What we have to ask ourselves is: is there really a problem when someone does not practice what he preaches? To me, there is no problem if one adopts a deflationary account of morality. That is, if one believes that all there is to morality is a web of sentiments, then there is no problem with telling others to do one thing and you doing another.
And that's how I would deal with the 2nd contradiction: by rejecting that it is a contradiction in the first place. It is not a contradiction, nor even an irony, to scold someone (mentally or otherwise) for being inconsiderate, while committing an inconsiderate act at the same time. That I want to scold that person for occupying a seat which others have more of a right to, is simply an expression of my socialised feeling of repulsiveness when someone does not act in a considerate manner; when it comes to clearing my tray, the feeling of inconvenience outweighs any feeling for civility, and so I do not clear my tray. This act is consistent with chiding someone else for acting in an inconsiderate manner.
I have a friend who likes to sit cross-legged in cinemas and lectures. I sometimes tell her this practice is not very appropriate. She pointed out that I sometimes tie my shoes while planting my soles on places meant for sitting. Now, I am able to get out of this apparent contradiction by using the same reasoning as above. But the downside with that is I now lack the moral persuasion to convince her not to sit cross-legged in cinemas and lectures, for what she can tell me is: your moral sentiment does not concern me at all, I have no reason to change my habit. Of course, the upside is she has no argumentative power to stop me from planting my shoes on seats while tying my shoes. A fair trade? Perhaps. But that's not my point.
My point is that under a paradigm where morality is deflated to a Humean size, most if not all moral inconsistencies can be resolved. Let's look at the first case again. On the one hand, I want to save trees, and I do that by keeping pieces of paper that have been used on both sides as rough paper. On the other, I have habits that dispense paper quite unnecessarily. Perhaps my want to save trees is merely a rough sentiment, a sentiment that gets outweighed by sentiments of comfort and tradition at times. I will save trees where I can; but the moment feelings of inconvenience or discomfort outweigh this desire, I will act in a manner that is most comfortable to me. Is this a betrayal of morality? No. I would think this is morality.
The last season of Prison Break is going from mediocre to terrible. The injection of the brothers' mum, the many twists and turns being introduced to keep the excitement going, urgh. I think they should have ended things in season 3, and I think the idea of The Company is the main flaw in the series. The 9pm channel 8 drama showing now is quite enjoyable, the interaction between the characters seem quite fluid. It's hyperbolic, yes, but somehow I still find the characters very realistic.
Is there a way to reconcile these divergent practices? Perhaps. Perhaps I can say that I work better when writing in pen, and writing drafts out on paper. But I'm not sure if that's really true, because I don't write non-fiction out on paper before I type them, and I'm not particularly uncomfortable with that arrangement. Perhaps, then, I can say I work better when writing fiction in pen and paper before typing it out. But I don't think I can say that for sure; it seems more like a matter of adaptation or the lack thereof that is stopping me from writing fiction pieces on the computer without writing them on pen and paper first. Same goes for reading heavy stuff on the computer. If I would just make the step of changing my habits perhaps I would be advocating reading stuffs on screen instead of printing them next time.
The other problem with such a defense is that it also justifies a lot of environmentally-destructive practices. If I can defend my practice of writing with pen and paper because I feel I can do work better this way, then so can the compulsive shoe-hoarder say that he owns 50 pairs of shoes because he feels he works better that way. We don't usually buy such a reason, so I don't think I can defend my practice of writing with pen and paper that way. Ultimately this means I can't reconcile my divergent practices.
Here's another example. Earlier on I was having dinner at Subway. A person was doing some homework there, occupying 1 seat when she hadn't ordered anything, and the eatery was crowded. I mentally chided her for being so inconsiderate. When I finished my meal, I didn't clear my tray even though this was explicitly requested on a sign. I didn't mentally chide myself for being inconsiderate. In fact, I felt quite happy about it.
Now, my defense for this would be to say that this is a contradiction only if one is under the assumption that we must adhere to the moral standards we peg others to. In other words, that we must always practice what we preach. What we have to ask ourselves is: is there really a problem when someone does not practice what he preaches? To me, there is no problem if one adopts a deflationary account of morality. That is, if one believes that all there is to morality is a web of sentiments, then there is no problem with telling others to do one thing and you doing another.
And that's how I would deal with the 2nd contradiction: by rejecting that it is a contradiction in the first place. It is not a contradiction, nor even an irony, to scold someone (mentally or otherwise) for being inconsiderate, while committing an inconsiderate act at the same time. That I want to scold that person for occupying a seat which others have more of a right to, is simply an expression of my socialised feeling of repulsiveness when someone does not act in a considerate manner; when it comes to clearing my tray, the feeling of inconvenience outweighs any feeling for civility, and so I do not clear my tray. This act is consistent with chiding someone else for acting in an inconsiderate manner.
I have a friend who likes to sit cross-legged in cinemas and lectures. I sometimes tell her this practice is not very appropriate. She pointed out that I sometimes tie my shoes while planting my soles on places meant for sitting. Now, I am able to get out of this apparent contradiction by using the same reasoning as above. But the downside with that is I now lack the moral persuasion to convince her not to sit cross-legged in cinemas and lectures, for what she can tell me is: your moral sentiment does not concern me at all, I have no reason to change my habit. Of course, the upside is she has no argumentative power to stop me from planting my shoes on seats while tying my shoes. A fair trade? Perhaps. But that's not my point.
My point is that under a paradigm where morality is deflated to a Humean size, most if not all moral inconsistencies can be resolved. Let's look at the first case again. On the one hand, I want to save trees, and I do that by keeping pieces of paper that have been used on both sides as rough paper. On the other, I have habits that dispense paper quite unnecessarily. Perhaps my want to save trees is merely a rough sentiment, a sentiment that gets outweighed by sentiments of comfort and tradition at times. I will save trees where I can; but the moment feelings of inconvenience or discomfort outweigh this desire, I will act in a manner that is most comfortable to me. Is this a betrayal of morality? No. I would think this is morality.
The last season of Prison Break is going from mediocre to terrible. The injection of the brothers' mum, the many twists and turns being introduced to keep the excitement going, urgh. I think they should have ended things in season 3, and I think the idea of The Company is the main flaw in the series. The 9pm channel 8 drama showing now is quite enjoyable, the interaction between the characters seem quite fluid. It's hyperbolic, yes, but somehow I still find the characters very realistic.
2 Comments:
Emotion plays a vital and powerful role in our lives. We always attempt to integrate emotion with a deeper understanding of the human condition.
It requires a lot of sacrifice to walk the talk as it often requires people to give up things taken for granted. But it is also a necessary step to earning the moral authority needed to persuade others to follow.
But if one has no concrete desire beyond mere sentiments to elicit others, or indeed himself/herself, to change for what they interpret to be better (for society), then its perfectly all right to remain mired in contradictions.
There are those who feel and think but do not act, and there are those who feel, think and act. Perhaps those who are truly of moral character are the latter.
Aquila
Post a Comment
<< Home