WHY WE DO WHAT WE DO

NOTE: (Human behaviour is an extremely complex subject. This chapter gives only a very broad overview of some basic aspects of the human person, and their functions regarding our behaviour).

Everyone knows that good intentions do not guarantee good actions. Sometimes we know the right thing to do, and we want to do it but just cannot seem to muster up the will, and end up doing the thing we did not want to do. For example, have you ever wanted to study for an exam but ended up doing something else instead, like going to a party? So, our desires and our actions are often in conflict. What causes this conflict in us and what are the parts of us which oppose each other?

There is certainly that part of us which chooses what we would do in a given situation. Let us call this the will. But there has to be that part of us which presents the options and suggestions to the will. Call this the mind. The rest of us with its physical and emotional urges and desires we can call man's base nature. Now the base nature has needs which must be fulfilled in order for us to survive. We need to eat. We need to sleep. As a species we need to have children. We need to be protected from danger, etc. Very often we do not spend much time thinking about fulfilling these needs. There are natural impulses motivated by feelings of pleasure or fear of pain which work to fulfil these needs. Sleep, for example, often happens without input from the will. If someone attacks us, we might defend ourselves automatically without thinking. However, we could still choose not to follow these natural impulses at least for a time.

We could think of the mind as a thought pump. It automatically processes everything which the senses detect. It compares and contrasts these with related memories, and within this continuous process, generates thoughts. For example, if we feel hungry, we automatically think of food, but not just any food. We would recall foods we have had in the past, foods that may now satisfy us. If we hear good music we might think of dancing, or a party we attended last week, etc. Very importantly, the mind also reasons things out. So apart from presenting suggestions of actions to the will, it also presents arguments for and against these very actions.

There is mounting evidence indicating strong links between behaviour and chemical reactions within the brain. We may all be predisposed to act in particular ways simply because of body chemistry, and it may be difficult to judge the degree of difficulty one's will, could have in keeping control over one's behaviour. When a person gets addicted to anything, for example, cigarettes, drugs, or alcohol, particular impulses become powerful urges. The addict feels compelled towards some action and the will seems powerless to choose any other.

But most of us are not dogged as much by compulsions as by natural urges and impulses. And are there not other reasons for impulsive actions? What about simply force of habit? For example, a man who loves to drive his car fast. That could cause a type of impulsive behaviour. You can say that fast driving could become his 'natural way' of driving. In order for him to drive slowly at times he might have to consciously (think), and deliberately (will himself) to go against his normal way of driving.

To recap:

The base nature does not think but simply flees from pain and seeks pleasure. Its purpose is to motivate those actions which keep us alive and well. However, actions may be instinctive and automatic, or may require thought through the mind and acceptance from the will. The mind takes the desires of the base nature and suggests to the will, ways these can be satisfied. It also gives to the will reasons whether or not they should be pursued, delayed, or handled in any other way. The will, then, presented with all the options, chooses which action would be taken.

But sometimes people do things which go against the desires of their base nature apparently without any reason beneficial to themselves. Why for example, would a man tired from a hard day at work forego rest to help a stranger in need, or worse, an enemy? It seems that there is another part of us which we call conscience. The nature of conscience is a much-disputed subject in today's world. However, it is generally defined as an understanding of right and wrong. But this definition is not sufficient for our purpose, and needs further explanation on its use in this book.

Many animals know from instinct or experience, behaviour patterns essential for survival in their environment. Their minds reason as we do, except perhaps they might not have input from a conscience. Yet, they might do good to other creatures for symbiotic reasons. That is, their “good” actions to another creature might be part of the nature of their relationship with their ecological environment which works positively for their species. Their actions might have nothing to do with moral behaviour but practical self-survival. Humans, like other animals, know from instinct and experience, behaviour patterns which would be good or detrimental to themselves, and we do judge these as "wrong" in one sense. but human conscience deals with 'right' and 'wrong' in a different sense.

In man, conscience seems to be the natural consequence of self-identity; a consequence of his ability to ask the question, "why do I exist in the first place?" or "What is my purpose?" and not just "What should I do to survive?" To act like other animals, just for the sake of survival, does not seem to be sufficient for man, ─at least not for long. Life for Man must have meaning. To have an understanding of what is right and wrong for themselves people naturally seek first have an understanding of themselves. "Right' for the conscience, is action which expresses the individual's understanding of self. Whether or not the question, "why do I exist?" is vocalized, or consciously expressed, or consciously considered, everyone is prompted to act according to their answer to it. Sometimes a person believes that their purpose is to be happy at any cost and they act without sensitivity to anyone or anything else. Some might say that such a person has no conscience, but here again their conscience is active and simply reflects their self-understanding.

What is considered right or wrong for a person then, is a measure of his self-understanding. The development of this self-understanding is strongly but not exclusively influenced by the society in which an individual develops. People of any particular society tend to accept the society's definition of themselves. Sometimes, however, there are individuals who do not accept society's definitions, and go on to redefine themselves.

What is the purpose of conscience and where does it fit in our decision of what to do in a given situation? Firstly, as was stated before, conscience is generally held as that part of us which is able to appreciate the differences between moral right and wrong. In this book, however, we will take a broader view of conscience and also define 'right and 'wrong' in more basic terms. We will define conscience as that part of us which keeps us focused on fulfilling our perceived purpose in life (or if you like, our perceived will of God'). We will define "right" as actions that work towards the fulfilment of our true purpose and "wrong." those that do not.

When a man's actions are right, that means he is doing what he is supposed to do. And when he does what he is supposed to do, then it could only mean that he is fulfilling his purpose. It should be noted here that one could be convinced that one's actions are right when in fact they might be wrong if there is a misperception of purpose. Secondly, the will considers the promptings (guidance) of conscience and matches these up with other suggestions of the mind.

If a man believes that his purpose is to fulfil the promptings of his base nature, then there will be no conflict inside of him. There are sure to be serious consequences, however. On the other hand, if someone sees their purpose as serving the dictates of love and mercy, then there is bound to be conflict between the base nature and conscience.

The suggestions offered to the will from the base nature and those offered by conscience are sometimes at odds with each other. The will then has the ability to choose something totally opposite to the base nature. Even though we all are prone to act in some particular way, there is will, prompted by conscience, which has the ability to direct our actions in another way. That is why we are often caught in the dilemma of not wanting to do the things we feel to do. But even this is not the full conflict. If we do the things we feel to do and oppose conscience, we feel guilty. We would have done something which we think we should not have done. On the other hand, denying our natural feelings of our base nature carries its own type of pain. People however, have very innovative ways of getting out of this dilemma. We simply go through a sort of inner dialogue to convince ourselves that what we feel to do is what we ought to do. Consider the following:

A man was having a lot of trouble with his car and decided to sell it. He painted over the rust spots, put certain additives in the oil to hide the smoking and oil pressure problems temporarily, etc. When a prospective buyer came and enquired about the performance of the car, the man gave such high praise of his vehicle and played the salesman to such perfection that it was off his hands in no time. There was this little thing inside him saying that he ought to have been more honest about the car, but then he held on to the thought that it was the buyer's responsibility to find out more about it, and his prerogative to be silent about the car's more troublesome aspects.

Are the man's actions honest?

Does his attitude promote mercy, love, or anything noble?

A mother came home totally exhausted one day and was so looking forward to a cool shower and a good sleep. She had barely shut her eyes that night when she heard her two-year-old son coughing and tossing in his bed. On checking she found that he had a fever and seemed to find comfort only when she held him to her breast. This mother then spent the night in a chair holding her son. Forgoing her own comfort so that her child might have some rest, she hoped that perhaps he would feel better the next day.

Suppose the mother thought to herself that she would not be very good to anybody in the morning if she did not get her full night's sleep. So, she propped up her son as best as she could and went to bed. This seems reasonable enough, but would she have acted on that reasoning because she wanted to sleep or because she honestly considered it to be best for all? It can be one or the other, which shows how subtle and how easy self-deception is at times.

Our Individual understanding of our purpose might affect how, what, or who we love. As we seem to be guided by the two masters of base nature and conscience, which often are at odds with each other, how do we fulfil this purpose? To answer this, let us start with a broad and somewhat deficient definition of love. Let us define love as simply "to care deeply about."

Our base nature seems to care for, and about itself. It craves those things which bring satisfaction and comfort to itself. It does not have the ability to care for another unless serving that other brings satisfaction to itself. Using the broad definition of love, we can say it "loves" itself? But it has no choice but to desire those things which bring it comfort. That 'love' is not a matter of choosing to serve itself. In serving itself it is doing the only thing it can. Neither praise nor blame can be directed onto this part of man.

If, however, we define love as caring for and about another in spite of oneself, then, only our will can do that. Only that part of us which has the ability to choose, can choose to care for another more than itself. Only because of that part of us can we love, or show mercy. And here we come to one of the most important points concerning man’s purpose. Considering that our free will gives us the ability to love. It seems that the purpose of our free will is to empower us to love.

The fact that free will can also allow the self-serving base nature to control our actions is further evidence of this, because if it only served the base nature, it would be redundant. As it is with all other creatures, we should expect our base nature would serve to preserve our species very effectively. So, why would we need a free will?

The only reason that free will exists, seems to be for its ability to empower us to act in opposition to the base nature. Now, It could be argued that the ability to act in opposition to our base nature could mean two things: 1, empowering us to act unselfishly and with love, or 2, empowering us to act callously, in ways detrimental to ourselves and to others. However, as the second option serves no useful purpose, we may say that the purpose of our free will is to empower us to act in opposition to our base nature so that we can love others.

A good graphic of this point is to imagine people as boats moving along a turbulent and dangerous river. The flow of water represents the base nature, the engines of the boats represent free will. Any boat using its engine to move where the currents would naturally take it would be unnecessary and even dangerous, because, in effect, the boat will still be at the vicissitudes of the untamed water. The engine would only be useful if it propels the boat in a way the currents would not. The engine finds its meaning in its opposition to the current. And the engines can be used to go to the assistance of others who might be in trouble.

The suggestion (stated in the chapter on generosity), that the greater the sacrifice, the greater the generosity, supports this idea. It might seem then, that the struggle between the base nature and conscience serve the purpose of love perfectly. If love shines more brightly the greater the personal sacrifice, and the more difficult the struggle, then, not only does our will serve the purpose of love and mercy, but also our base nature by its struggles against conscience serves the purpose of love and mercy.

Is love something of the will or is it a feeling of the base nature?

Could there be free will without conscience?

How important is an understanding of purpose to an understanding of right and wrong?

What makes us different from other animals?

Should the pursuit of pleasure be greater than the pursuit of purpose?

Can you think of any situations where people put the pursuit of pleasure before purpose?

Human beings have the capacity to appreciate beauty in music, movement (dance), visual arts, etc. Does our pursuit of beauty come from a pursuit of pleasure or a need to find purpose, and meaning in creation? Does it come from both?

Does finding beauty and harmony in art or nature bring pleasure?

In what ways do you think that man acts no different than other animals?

Is it possible to grow in virtue without inner struggles?

Is there a purpose to our apparent weaknesses?

Is there value in being patient in suffering? Does it strengthen us in any way?

Can we love someone we do not like?

Is there value in doing good to those who hate us?

If someone chooses to engage in activities such as taking addictive, illegal drugs which may trigger destructive compulsive behaviour, which is the greater wrong. the compulsive behaviour itself or the choosing of the activities which causes it in the first place?

If compulsive behaviour overpowers our will, should we avoid anything which could lead to addiction and compulsive behaviour where we can only act to satisfy physical or emotional cravings?

How much against love is it, to be driven by compulsive behaviour and not even have the desire to be released from its addiction?

Would it be better if we could once and for all subdue our selfish ways and devote the rest of our lives in service to others, or keep the challenge of subduing our selfishness every moment of our lives and so carry our inner struggles in love for others as an eternal gift?

How important for moral actions is developing good habits?

How does listening to aggressive, violent music or looking at morally degrading shows affect our thought patterns? How do these things affect the development of our conscience?

Can our conscience be ill formed? What may cause this? Have you ever met someone who was boldfaced and obviously wrong about something and seemed unable to grasp the truth?

Is it morally wrong to engage in things which may lead to destructive addictive behaviour?

Can love become second nature to us?

In our inner dialogues how important is it to be honest with ourselves?

Can truthfulness become second nature to us? Can dishonesty become second nature to us?

What causes our will to love, especially to love those who probably would never love us in return? What gives us the power to go against our physical and emotional cravings?

Activity: For one day, refrain from doing something you like. Use any extra time or resources this gives you to help someone. Perhaps you might help more around the house. Note your experience of this self-denial in your journal.