Self Control

Self-control is an odd thing, isn't it - analogous to Orwellian doublethink.  It contains the ability to have a thought and its opposite in mind simultaneously.  I want to do something, and yet I do not.  Only one of these can be objectively true.  Even a debate analogy is ridiculous - with whom am I debating, if not myself?  (None of my other personalities are usually so vocal!)  No? Not sold on it?  Okay... Perhaps a better analogy is a tug-of-war, with each desire on an end of a rope.  But this too is preposterous, because the person on both sides is the same - you.  It still involves an amount of doublethink.

Now, doublethink is in reality far too strong a word, for doublethink involves no debate.  In the mind of a doublethinker, there is no conflict, no tension, no contradiction is holding two opposite beliefs or opinions at the same time.  While the entire condition of self-control revolves around the conflict to abolish one of these opinions or desires.  We desire a conclusion even more than a particular conclusion.  How often have you heard this: "I don't care what you choose, just pick one!" or "I wish someone could make this decision for me."  So whenever you think something like this, take a certain pleasure in it, because it means you are still sane.  Two and two still make four, and you don't yet love Big Brother.  But back to the self-control.

We exercise our self-control for a variety of reasons, but it really only boils down to one: the repercussions.  For some examples: one decides not to play the video game, kiss the girl, or murder our sister's cheating boyfriend because these actions have negative consequences: one would play the video game to the detriment of household chores or homework; one would kiss the girl, risking a slap in the face or some such thing; one would murder the cheating boyfriend for fear of jail time (and one's sister being pissed).  The fear of consequences keep us in line.

But that's not entirely the case, is it?  Now we get into a debate of morals and ethics.  I feel murder is wrong is almost any circumstance, and so would not kill the boyfriend.  I choose not to steal from my neighbors not because I fear prison but because theft is an unethical act. (Also, they lock every single one of their windows.  Seriously? You're on the third floor, lighten up.)

I have two points of rebuttal to my ethical argument, but first there is the religious one.  In some religions - some - there is an otherworldly punishment for evil deeds, which clearly implies that despite one's deity telling you not to do something, you'll still do it.  Even though one's Supreme Being, creator of all or holder of all wisdom prohibits an action, you still might do it, so they have to have an actual punishment.  So the ethical argument fails for those sorts of religions.

But even if you aren't religious, there are still reasons to doubt the efficacy of a purely ethical reasoning for prohibiting oneself from an action that one desires to do. First, ethics are inherited from ancestors: maybe parents, who got these beliefs from their parents and so on.  But these beliefs did not spring from a place of generosity and kindness - they came from a place of societal order.  If we're going to have a society, we have to have rules.  Eventually, these rules become more than codified, they become ingrained in the psyche of the community members.  So the ethics are really just a desire to maintain order - to avoid repercussion.

Secondly, since each person has their own conception of the good, we essentially all make our own morality. Therefore, there is no objective measure of what is right or wrong.  If I thought it was right, I would steal.  If I thought it was okay, I would murder, and so on.  The ethical argument only works while we still maintain our ethical stance on an issue.  If you hit my sister, I'll burn your house down.  Tit for tat.  Arson and murder (yes, you'll be in the house) are not acceptable behaviors, but I'm willing to suspend my ethical belief for an extreme circumstance.  And since I also define what constitutes an "extreme circumstance," the system is meaningless. The convicts are running the prison, and they've all decided they're not guilty.

So that might be taking the argument to an extreme, but it gets my point across, and it is this: self-control is a weird concept, one I've always struggled with.  I say we do away with it - sound good? ;)

Music: The White Stripes - "I Just Don't Know What To Do With Myself"