Freedomain Radio

Hi everyone, I've been with FDR for a long time, however this is my first time speaking out. I wanted to share a problem that I have had for several months now that I haven't been able to answer. Maybe the combined brilliance of FDR can shine a light on something that I'm missing here, but it seems like to me that acting through willpower is inherently an immoral action. Here's why:

-If willpower is defined as self-restraint or self-control in order to achieve a goal (preferably a moral one),

-And if control/restraint is rooted in the initiation of the use of force,

-And if it is immoral to initiate the use of force to achieve your goals,

-Then wouldn't it follow that control is immoral, and thus willpower is immoral?

I know this might come off as a bit confusing so let me attempt to clarify it a bit. One of my personal goals is to act with consistent integrity in every aspect of my life. To do so, I must first find an area in my life where I am not acting with integrity, carve out the moral path, and condition myself through willpower and self-discipline to follow it. However if the above assertion is true, then I am using willpower (the initiation of the use of force against myself) to achieve the goal of consistent morality. To put it simply, I am using immorality to train myself to be moral, which would be one of Stef's famous self-detonating arguments.

Since I discovered this a few months ago, I've been trying to figure out a way you could condition yourself without using willpower in order to use as a practical example of an alternative. So far it's been to no avail, which makes me suspect I'm missing something major, and I hope I am (it would clarify a lot, and make life a lot easier). Please let me know what you guys think, I’d be happy to answer any questions at all.

P.S. Thanks so much to Stef for all of his contributions, and to all of you for contributing such great content to such an important cause. Sorry for not donating, money is kinda tight. Lame excuse I know…

Could you clarify for me how, in your mind, it would be 'initiating force' against one's self to exercise restraint? I don't really see any problem/contradiction, but I may be missing something of course.

Also, there were a couple of duplicate posts from you I think, one here:

http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/t/23038.aspx

Edit: just to add that I thought this was an interesting topic. Thanks for posting, it's not easy posting the first time so massive 'first-time post' kudos to you!

 Hey,

I'm afraid I didn't entirely comprehend your post, so apologies if I’ve missed something; I've only recently woken up. May I suggest that the idea that willpower is immoral is slightly too metaphysical, or at least reduced beyond the definitions. Morality is not a physical law, and as such a rock that damages a tree has committed no act of immorality, and even in nature, no animal can commit and immoral act against another, as far as we understand.

Morality is defined therefore, by the human choice that initiates any moral or immoral action. If we take the definition of morality of preferable behavior, and self-restraint is your personally preferable action in any situation, then it is moral. I also bring up the metaphor of inhuman action, because I don't believe there to be any force involved, atoms cannot be immoral, and your immortality stems from action outside your body. It is not immoral to take drugs that damage you, if that is what you want; though it may be immoral in the pain it causes those who care about you.

Finally, it's unfair to assume that "initiation of force" is immoral. It would be better to term it, "unwanted" initiation of force, because there are many moral or at least not immoral acts which require the initiation of force against another human being. They are things like sadomasochism, euthanasia and - for an action that is physical initiation of force as opposed to mental - self-harm.

Thanks,

James

I think that force is only necessary where there is no desire. It depends on terminology of course. You could say that you have to 'force' yourself to work out, or 'force' yourself to get up for work in the morning, but if the desire to get fit/earn money is there, then force in this sense isnt a bad thing. It is more of a 'want'....'I WANT to do these things', not 'im forcing myself to do these things'. Im not sure that a person can use force against themself because if they didnt want to do something, they simply wouldnt. If they do want to do something, they weigh out the pros and cons and the overall decision becomes desire, so no force is necessary. 

Hey borip,

out of respect for you I'm going to be completely honest about my personal opinion. I trust you can take everything I say with a grain of salt, I tend to be rather practical in both the way I express myself and the way I think.

Personally I think the question is irrelevant. As a human being you have a fundamental necesity to use your own willpower to "force" yourself, and any line of reasoning that brings you to a conclusion other than this is, frankly, utter bunk and doesn't even merit consideration.

it´s simply not a question of morality; Morality comes into play as form of social "rules of the game". If I lived in complete isolation from the world around me (Had no previous family or history, had no responsibilities, etc.) no action I ever took could ever be considered moral o immoral.

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} p {mso-style-priority:99; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Note: again, I dont know what that stuff is above my post, I proofread my posts in word, is that what's doing it?

Yeah, of course! I think that for everyone a situation arises where you have to choose between what you want to do, and what you believe you should do. Just as a common example: "I want to go to bed because I am sleepy, but I should brush my teeth before I do." In this kind of situation, you are presented with two choices:

1) Do what you want to do: Sleep

2) Do what you believe you should do: Brush teeth

The difference being that #2 requires willpower, and #1 doesn't. You are engaging in "self-restraint" from sleepiness to brush your teeth.

So the way I see it (and what gives rise to the problem), is that it's like there's two people inside your head: The person who wants sleep, and the person who wants clean teeth. So in order for the person who wants clean teeth to get his way, he has to exercise some form of force to keep the sleeper from acting, otherwise the sleeper would just go to bed (as per his desire). Even the word "self-restraint" denotes the concept of forcing the "self" to do something it would otherwise not do. So, just as I would initiate the use force to restrain a different person, I must surely be using a similar force to restrain myself. Thus I arrive at willpower (or self-restraint) is the initiation of force, and as such is immoral.

Thanks for the questions; I get confused reading my own writing sometimes! Sorry

Oh, I intentionally posted duplicates; I figured more people would see it. I noticed however most other people don't do that so maybe a bad call.....

Hey thanks a lot Agalloch! I didn't see it that way before, I think you're right. This whole problem makes a lot more sense if you view willpower as a wanted initiation of the use of force, rather than the immoral unwanted counterpart. I was working under the assumption that all forms of the initiation of force were unwanted and therefore immoral. This clears up quite a lot. Thank you!

I'm not sure if I completely agree with the idea of morality being confined to external actions (if that's an accurate paraphrase of your response), but I'll think about it. Thanks again!

borip:

So the way I see it (and what gives rise to the problem), is that it's like there's two people inside your head: The person who wants sleep, and the person who wants clean teeth. So in order for the person who wants clean teeth to get his way, he has to exercise some form of force to keep the sleeper from acting, otherwise the sleeper would just go to bed (as per his desire). Even the word "self-restraint" denotes the concept of forcing the "self" to do something it would otherwise not do. So, just as I would initiate the use force to restrain a different person, I must surely be using a similar force to restrain myself. Thus I arrive at willpower (or self-restraint) is the initiation of force, and as such is immoral.

Any time you think there are two people in your head, you have created a false self, generally through the operation of the ego. It's an illusion and a very harmful one. That constant voice in head which simply never stops talking - that monkey brain - that incessant chatter that won't stop thinking thoughts - that's the ego. The awareness behind that, the entity which witnesses all that chatter is YOU.

Let's make an analogy or demonstration. Say I give you a teddy bear to hold. And you begin talking to and in fact arguing with the teddy bear over brushing your teeth. Is there any part of this which you would now regard as "using force" over the teddy bear? <shudder> - I hope not!

That incessant yakking inside your head is a teddy bear. Learn meditation and learn how to still that voice and reunite with the true self, the awareness at the heart of you. That will end all arguments, and all concepts of force, and all concepts of immorality actually. Good luck!

 borip-

About that stuff at the top of your post -  I use Word to write my longer posts because FDR sometimes closes for reasons I don't know and I lose what I have written.  And when I'm done, instead of trying to copy and paste into FDR, I drag and drop from the Word window into the FRD window and that formatting information doesn't show up on my post.