"Involuntary" Evasion

[piz 0]

This topic has much to do with psychology, but the question I'm asking is an ethical one, so I'm posting it here.

There's no such thing as "involuntary evasion" - evasion is always chosen. But consider someone who has automatized from the earliest age, let's say, "second-hander" behaviors, due perhaps to a dysfunctional parent who demanded at all times that the child attune himself to the parent's wishes, needs, or whims, or be punished with the threat or even the fact of abandonment (perhaps the most powerful threat a very young child can face). Later the child learns (preferably via Objectivism ) that it's wrong to be a second-hander - that it's true and right for him to be his own motive power. He chooses, consciously, to live the right way. However he still has these deep, long-standing, automatized mechanisms, which worked for his survival as a child but which are diametrically opposed to becoming a first-hand human being. ("Mechanism" is perhaps not the right word here - I don't know exactly what is, but I think the point is clear.)

On the psychological journey from (now unwilling) second-hander to first-hander, because it takes time to replace them his old mechanisms will often override his conscious motives, such that he still acts the second-hander. It might seem, even to himself, that he's evading, though that's the last thing he consciously wants to do. His "evasion" here is, in effect, involuntary. What is his moral status when that happens?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

On the psychological journey from (now unwilling) second-hander to first-hander, because it takes time to replace them his old mechanisms will often override his conscious motives, such that he still acts the second-hander. It might seem, even to himself, that he's evading, though that's the last thing he consciously wants to do. His "evasion" here is, in effect, involuntary. What is his moral status when that happens?

←

That depends on what he chooses to do about it.

The moral is the chosen, so it is unfair to hold someone morally accountable for automatic emotional reactions or automatized patterns of behavior. They are not subject to choice.

What is open to choice is the decision to make the effort to be aware of automatic reactions based on false premises, to consciously correct them when they occur, and to ignore and refuse to act on emotional reactions you are convinced are incorrect. Just smile and say to yourself, "There I go again. I know better than that now. I've come a long way, baby!"

[Paul's Here 0]

On the psychological journey from (now unwilling) second-hander to first-hander, because it takes time to replace them his old mechanisms will often override his conscious motives, such that he still acts the second-hander. It might seem, even to himself, that he's evading, though that's the last thing he consciously wants to do. His "evasion" here is, in effect, involuntary. What is his moral status when that happens?

←

Consciousness, like everything else, has an identity. Once certain premises have been fully integrated into one's personality, simply grasping that there is an alternative will not automatically make the person act or think correctly. One has to integrate the correct premise into one's personality, and consciously be aware of when one's behavior is motivated by the bad premises. It often takes a long time to uproot bad premises.

The important first step is to recognize that there are two choices involved: the choice to think and the choice to act. Each must be made separately. Moral judgment comes into play when the individual acts on premises he has integrated through evasion or when he knows he's evading thinking about issues that should be focused on more intensely. For example, people who make procrastination a part of their character often wait till the last second to do what needs to be done. This creates psychological stress and anxiety. Most procrastinators know they should start a task well in advance of when it is do, but chose to evade that knowledge and do something else until the last minute comes around.

[Paul's Here 0]

That depends on what he chooses to do about it.

The moral is the chosen, so it is unfair to hold someone morally accountable for automatic emotional reactions or automatized patterns of behavior.  They are not subject to choice.

←

Within the context of the question, what types of behavior are "automatized patters?"

Specifically, after a person becomes aware that he doesn't have to act on premises he knows to be bad, wouldn't it be moral for him to judge himself if he continues to act? Wouldn't it be moral for others to judge him if they knew that he was acting on premises that he knew to be bad?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Within the context of the question, what types of behavior are "automatized patterns?"

Specifically, after a person becomes aware that he doesn't have to act on premises he knows to be bad, wouldn't it be moral for him to judge himself if he continues to act?  Wouldn't it be moral for others to judge him if they knew that he was acting on premises that he knew to be bad?

←

Not unless they knew WHY he was doing it. Was it because he fell into an old habit, caught himself a minute later, and stopped? That's very good. Was it because he considers changing bad habits too much trouble even if it is to his self interest so he deliberately lies to himself and rationalizes why his old way of doing things is really best? That's bad.

In any case, when a person is in the process of change in a positive direction, he will mess up and make mistakes from time to time. The important thing is not that he messes up, but what he chooses to do about it. If he moralizes and berates himself, that doesn't help him progress at all. He is much better off to simply realize, "That wasn't very smart," and make an effort to do better next time.

[Paul's Here 0]

Not unless they knew WHY he was doing it.  Was it because he fell into an old habit, caught himself a minute later, and stopped?  That's very good.  Was it because he considers changing bad habits too much trouble even if it is to his self interest so he deliberately lies to himself and rationalizes why his old way of doing things is really best?  That's bad.

In any case, when a person is in the process of change in a positive direction, he will mess up and make mistakes from time to time.  The important thing is not that he messes up, but what he chooses to do about it.  If he moralizes and berates himself, that doesn't help him progress at all.  He is much better off to simply realize, "That wasn't very smart," and make an effort to do better next time.

←

I agree. I have found that passing moral judgment on oneself takes on a different application or meaning than passing moral judgment on others. An individual should never moralize or berate himself when trying to change in a positive direction. Although it is important to identify whether what one is doing is right or wrong, when one is in the process of change the additional judgment that one is "bad" can be psychologically damaging. When introspecting, just knowing that one is doing something wrong and not acting on the bad premise is a difficult enough judgment to make. Figuring out what to do that is right is also very difficult.

The characters of Hank Rearden and Jim Taggart illustrate the differences in introspective abilities and moral judgment on oneself. Although Rearden realizes he is doing harmful things to himself, he doesn't say, "I am evil" because of it. He struggles to understand his premises and make a change. Jim Taggart, who avoids introspection at all costs, finally comes face to face with his premises by the end of the book, realizes that he is downright evil and that there is nothing he can do about it.

[Paul's Here 0]

I agree.  I have found that passing moral judgment on oneself takes on a different application or meaning than passing moral judgment on others.  An individual should never moralize or berate himself when trying to change in a positive direction.    Although it is important to identify whether what one is doing is right or wrong, when one is in the process of change the additional judgment that one is "bad" can be psychologically damaging.  When introspecting, just knowing that one is doing something wrong and not acting on the bad premise is a difficult enough judgment to make.  Figuring out what to do that is right is also very difficult. 

The characters of Hank Rearden and Jim Taggart illustrate the differences in introspective abilities and moral judgment on oneself.  Although Rearden realizes he is doing harmful things to himself, he doesn't say, "I am evil" because of it.  He struggles to understand his premises and make a change.  Jim Taggart, who avoids introspection at all costs, finally comes face to face with his premises by the end of the book, realizes that he is downright evil and that there is nothing he can do about it.

←

One additional comment I'd like to add to my post above:

Yet when an outsider passes passes moral judgment, such as John Galt and his strikers, they perceive Rearden as a threat until he actually does achieve change and refuse to ask him to join the strike and go to Galt's Gulch. This illustrates the significant difference between passing judgment on oneself and on others.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Yet when an outsider passes passes moral judgment, such as John Galt and his strikers, they perceive Rearden as a threat until he actually does achieve change and refuse to ask him to join the strike and go to Galt's Gulch.  This illustrates the significant difference between passing judgment on oneself and on others.

←

Observe that the strikers treat Dagny exactly the same way as Readen although she has never done anything wrong. She is just honestly mistaken about the looters and their motives.

The issue when dealing with others is not "are they moral or not" by some abstract standard unrelated to our own lives. It is a matter of "are they good or bad for me." Generally, dealing with completely immoral people is not to your self-interest, but dealing with totally moral people may not be to your self-interest either in certain contexts.

[Paul's Here 0]

Observe that the strikers treat Dagny exactly the same way as Readen although she has never done anything wrong.  She is just honestly mistaken about the looters and their motives.

The issue when dealing with others is not "are they moral or not" by some abstract standard unrelated to our own lives.  It is a matter of "are they good or bad for me."  Generally, dealing with completely immoral people is not to your self-interest, but dealing with totally moral people may not be to your self-interest either in certain contexts.

←

Very good point. The fact that someone in Seattle is a moral person doesn't mean I have to go out of my way to deal with him (I'm in Marlyand) if I have no personal interaction with that individual. In Atlas Shrugged, I'm sure there may be many moral people whom Galt does not ever meet. He does not make Galt's Gulch an open house to anyone who is moral.