“He's making a list,
And checking it twice,
Gonna find out who's naughty or nice.
Santa Claus is coming to town!”
And checking it twice,
Gonna find out who's naughty or nice.
Santa Claus is coming to town!”
Who’s been naughty? Who’s been nice? Questions we might ask small children around this time of year. This perpetuates the idea that those who have been good will be rewarded and those who haven’t won’t and satisfies our desire for justice. But I reckon it would be pretty hard to work out – naughty and nice sounds like opposite ends of the spectrum but people rarely live in extremes. So how would you do it? Weigh up the good vs. the bad and see which ‘pile’ is bigger? Would it simply be a case of numbers – more nice acts win over less naughty ones? Would the consequences or the motivation matter? Sounds tricky to me, glad I’m not Father Christmas!
It has made me think about actions and in what way these make up
the whole of our life-style. Is the good life simply one full of good habits? We
may describe someone as a generous person.
Are we just describing their generous actions or is there something more
fundamental which turns generous actions into a generous person?
Christmas is traditionally a time when our goodwill extends to
‘all men’, which sounds great and I know a lot of people act on this during the
run-up to Christmas.
As I have perused Facebook recently there seems to be a lot of
goodwill being extended; a friend is considering how she may better serve her
neighbourhood, another is working with a group to handout food baskets to
people struggling to make ends meet, and others are following the Bible
Society’s Advent challenge, which gives three activities each day that focus on
being generous and spreading goodwill.
I however, experienced my own inner Scrooge last weekend, as I
admit to feeling rather badgered and overwhelmed by volunteers shaking buckets,
clipboards being waved at me and seeing homeless people prop themselves up by
cash-points down the centre of the city. It’s not that I think these people are
undeserving of my help but my primary feeling was one of guilt rather than joy at
being able to offer my money or help.
It has made me consider the relationship between our actions, our
habits and our character. A friend recently asked me if it is possible to
change. I responded with a definite ‘Yes!’ but it strikes me that some things
are easier to change than others. Over the last few months changes have
occurred, new habits have been formed but I have been frustrated that there are
some habits that have not integrated themselves into my lifestyle. This has
left me questioning, why some and not others? Time is an obvious limitation but
are there other universal limitations? Is it possible that regardless of the
hope of reward a child will always be more naughty than nice?
Aristotle
believes that “Excellence is an art won by training and
habituation….We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but
a habit.” Perhaps some changes take more
time – 21 days is often put forward as the magic number of days but I have done
some research and others say it can take anywhere between 18 – 254 days – so
there’s still time!
Is there a direct correlation between our actions and our character?
How strongly do you agree
with Aristotle that ‘we are what we repeatedly do.’?
What helps you create change
in your life?
Hi Suzi, hope you're well. I guess our actions are evidence of our character, and there is absolutely a direct correlation between our actions and our character. Actually this is a vital block on which our society is built, this notion of agency. It's a real chicken and egg question, the question of volition, and could drive you crazy. But our criminal law says that there is an "actua reus" and a "mens rea", meaning that there is a guilty act and a guilty mind. Some crimes require both (the most severe) and some require only the act. Obvioulsy we do not live in a police-state society with thought crimes, although "hate crime" is getting rather close. As examples, rape and murder require the act and the knowledge that the act is what you are doing. The two may not co-incide, so for example you could intend something but it doesn't go to plan. A mere actus reus might be speeding, where you commit an offence regardless of your state of mind.
ReplyDeleteWhilst there is a direct correlation between actions and character, netither are permanent of course and strength of character I suppose implies more of less continuity based on more or less actions. That's as far as I would go to agreeing with Aristotle on this one.
Would the consequences or the motivation matter? Jeremy Bentham, the father of the Utilitarian view of life, would say it didn't matter what you inteded to bring about, what matters is what actually happens. I think this is wrong because it places all on outcome and nothing on intention. Either way, we are blown about by the winds of fortune, but agency is far more important that the outcome. People say things like "it's the thought that counts" and the better the thinking, by rights the more likely it is to actually work out. Utilitariansim is so radical, and has had its day and its place, and at least its fair share of influence in the UK, and maybe even continues to do so, but instinctively the logic seems flawed.
I'd say the hardest things to change are the things that you do in tandem with others, because the behavioural patterns are doubly re-inforced. So this would be, for example, if you are trying to change a relationship in some way. We need routine and habit and continuity and safety and consistency, and we need to find that in others, but we also need the opposite and we need the agility and motivation to manoeuvre between the two and we need the people in our lives to have the same agility and motivation. Change is probably easier if people are supportive of it.
Our destinies are all intertwined. On a global scale as well as the immediate.
Thanks for your response E - some profound thoughts here. Even Utilitarians couldn't really agree on the whole outcome/intention problem which is why there ended up being three different forms - but it is still popular (whether people are acknowledging it or not) to follow the Utilitarian principle of embracing pleasure and rejecting pain and I think this philosophy still underlies much of society - although some might argue that it is 'natural philosophy' and we are just following our natures to pursue pleasure and avoid pain - anyhoo, I'm going off on a bit of a tangent.
DeleteI thought your comments about others and their impact on our behaviour and ability to change are really interesting. People now think that if we verbally share our intentions to change - this makes us more likely to succeed and if we change with someone else this makes success even more likely - we're such sheep!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete