… ok, just for fun – consider the ultimate “why” of human motivation
Happiness and the pursuit thereof
why does ANYONE do ANYTHING? obviously humans are emotionally complex beings with equally complex motivations – but if we try to get to a “root motivation” for individual actions then (maybe) “happiness” is that “root”
“Moral reasoning” also plays a big part in that “pursuit of happiness” thing — i.e. if someone THINKS that “getting material object” will MAKE them happy, well, they will never be “happy”
now, everyone that has ever worked at a job they hated is gonna immediately point out “I hated working at that job, it didn’t make me happy in any form” -> ok, if it didn’t make you happy, why not quit? -> and the answer might be “I needed the money” -> ok, and what did you do with that money? -> paid rent, bought food, survived -> and did that MAKE you happy? -> no, but it was better than being homeless and starving -> so it DID “make you happy”, just at a very low “subsistence” level
ok, “most folks lead lives of quiet desperation” is always true because MOST folks never sort out what “makes them happy” in the first place – which is where I come back to the old “un-examined life isn’t worth living” line quickly followed by “know thyself”
of course “happiness” for one person ain’t gonna be “happiness” for another person — and that is probably why we were endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (you know, just off the top of my head 😉 )
THEN one of the reasons humans form gov’ments is because folks “pursuing happiness” can come into conflict with each other — SO in an ideal society folks in the act of pursuing happiness wouldn’t hurt/interfere with OTHER folks pursuing happiness
this is kinda the old “my right to swing my arms ends when my arm swinging starts threatening OTHER people”
… and if you want to boil THAT concept down then it becomes “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (which is Immanuel Kant’s “categorical imperitive”)
AND THEN THAT statement is really just the old “golden rule” to “treat others the way YOU would like to be treated”
implementing the mundane details of the grand principle is why the “law codes” contain so much “lawyer-ese” but the principle is easy to understand
OF COURSE if someone thinks that their “pursuit of happiness” requires injuring other folks – well, they have broken the social contract and need to be corrected – obviously correcting a small child when they throw a temper tantrum because they can’t have or do “whatever” is preferable than incarcerating the adult that commits heinous crimes
The prisons are full of folks who think that the only “crime” they committed was getting caught. Yes, they (probably) understand the law they broke and why they are incarcerated – but understanding WHY you are being punished isn’t the same as regretting the crime committed.
Fortunately it isn’t MY job to judge anyone – I’m just making general observations about the human condition.
Virtue
Also fun to consider are the differences between “facts”, “information”/”knowledge”, and “wisdom”/”virtue”
Facts are individual pieces of information – maybe “datum” (singular of “data”) is more precise. THEN if we do something with the facts/data we might call that “information.” THEN doing the “correct” something might be called “wisdom.”
ok, the semantics aren’t important here – a trivial example might be “it is 20° F outside (datum)” SO “wear a coat it is cold outside” – and choosing the “winter coat” because it is below freezing might be “wisdom”
SO parents with a 4 year old child will (probably) just put the correct coat on the child when it gets cold outside. By the time the child is 8, they should be able to choose the correct coat to wear by themselves when the parent says “it is cold outside, put on a coat.” Then when they are 16 they should be able to figure out if it is cold outside all by themselves.
Calling something a “virtue” implies a “moral reasoning aspect” beyond basic self interest. i.e. if it is cold outside and you don’t wear a coat, you will be cold – but the only person being inconvenienced is you. Is NOT wearing a coat “immoral” – well, probably not.
Of course if you are cold, and then decide to steal someone else’s coat because you are cold – then that becomes a different matter.
Maybe trying to change a perceived “bad” habit is a better example – e.g. something like stopping smoking cigarettes – someone might KNOW that smoking is bad for their health AND that second hand smoke hurts others so they resolve to stop smoking. If they have to constantly THINK about NOT smoking, then it isn’t a virtue.
… and one day if someone comes up and offers them a cigarette and they AUTOMATICALLY say “I don’t smoke” – then it has become a “virtue.” They may still be tempted to smoke, but they are no longer a “smoker”
i.e. the HABIT of “making the correct decision” could be called “virtue.”
random thought: I’ve never been a smoker, but I’ve known a lot of smokers. A few of them smoked so much that they didn’t even realize they were smoking when they were smoking – which is neither good or bad, just an example of the fact that “lifelong habits” (good OR bad) are hard to break …
Did I have a point?
well, to point out the obvious – “happy people” don’t plan and commit murders —
The person living the un-examined life – PROBABLY feels like a victim most of the time because “things” seem to be happening to them that SEEM to make them unhappy.
These are the folks that are metaphorically hitting themselves in the head with a “hammer” – and then complaining about the fact that their head always hurts.
now, those “head hammering” folks can count on the folks SELLING them hammers to blame the headaches on something OTHER than the fact that they are hitting themselves in the head with a hammer
The “head hammerers” will probably surround themselves with “friends” also engaged in the metaphorical “head hammering” – so THOSE folks aren’t gonna see a problem with hitting themselves in the head with a hammer, after all “everyone is doing it”
SO if well meaning person comes along and points out that the “head hammerers” probably have headaches because they are all hitting themselves in the head with hammers – what will be the expected reaction?
well, a “normal distribution” response would probably include a few (10%?) of the “head hammerers” deciding to stop hitting themselves in the head to see what happens. The other extreme 10% would probably respond with anger and attack the “well meaning messenger.” THEN the 80% in the middle would continue on as normal (leading lives of quiet desperation) because they don’t think the information applies to them …
Values
“The Matrix” (1999) kind of stumbled onto the above point. MY reaction to the movie when I saw it “back in the day” was that they were making the same point as Socrates and the allegory of the Cave – i.e. MOST people in the matrix have no idea they are prisoners and so they have no concept of a “better” existence or of the need to be “freed.”
The sequels to The Matrix kinda make me question the amount the reference is intentional – but that isn’t the point
“Well I know it wasn’t you who held me down
“Already Gone” – On the Border (1974) – The Eagles
Heaven knows it wasn’t you who set me free
So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains
And we never even know we have the key”
IF we are self-aware beings with free moral agency then the responsibility for our “happiness” is “us.”
… OR …
IF we are victims of fate then nothing we do matters and we might as well remain chained to the wall in the cave.
… BUT …
Either way we will can’t escape the “values” question.
EVERYONE has “values.” e.g. The drug addict “values” their next hit – more examples probably aren’t required – just consider why YOU value.
I’m not telling anyone WHAT their values SHOULD be – but folks that have decided to live together in a “society” by definition are going to share some values. Those “shared values” are kinda what defines a society.
“An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex.”
-Aldous Huxley
At the very least – continued membership in polite society requires NOT being violent. i.e. if someone can’t “play nice” with other folks, well, they gotta be forcibly prevented from hurting others.
JUST IN GENERAL – if someone is attacking you, then defending yourself is acceptable. That defense should be an “appropriate response” to the attack – i.e. if someone accidentally bumps you then pulling out a hand gun and shooting them would NOT be “appropriate response.” — that should all be obvious —
SO if someone points out that people (in general) hitting themselves in the head with a hammer causes all kinds of bad things an APPROPRIATE response might be to defend the individuals right to live the lifestyle they choose.
BUT if the “hammer hitting industry” started trying to introduce “hammer hitting” into the elementary school curriculum – well, parents probably wouldn’t be happy.
Again, no one is saying THEY can’t hit themselves in the head with a hammer, but teaching hammer head hitting to small children would be inappropriate at best.
… and I’m hitting my point over the head with a hammer at this point.
You know who doesn’t climb up on roofs and shoot at people? well, people that are happy and healthy don’t just wake up one morning and decide to shoot someone because that someone holds opposing views.
Famous Assassinations
Merriam Webster tells me that an “assassination” == “murder by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons”
Julius Caesar
Ancient Rome went a couple hundred years as a Republic before the politicians of their day started murdering each other. Julius Caesar had lead Rome out of a destructive civil war when the members of the Senate decided to assassinate him in 44 BCE.
random thought: William Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” was one of the first of his plays that I read multiple times. I remember reading it in high school, and then reading it the second time in an “Introduction to Shakespeare” class in college.
The play seemed much more overtly “political” the second time I read it – HISTORICALLY the Romans were passionately opposed to having a “hereditary monarchy” – and Shakespeare drives home that aspect as motivation for the assassins. BUT most of the conspirators are acting out of selfish interest (except for Brutus who was an “honorable man”).
SO the Senators that assassinated Julius Caesar CLAIMED their motivations was that Caesar planned to make himself “King.”
Obviously Mr Shakespeare was living under a hereditary monarchy when he wrote his play – so the conspirators can’t be the “good guys.” Was Caesar ambitious? yes. Did he desire power? yes, again. Was he gonna make himself “King?” Maybe.
BUT what Caesar was or wasn’t planning isn’t the point – the assassins ended up destroying the last remnants of the Republic and starting another round of civil war.
… and the when Augustus Caesar (Julius Caesar’s adopted son) sorted things out – HE would spend 40 years PRETENDING he wasn’t a “King” – officially he liked to be called “Princeps” which translates to “first citizen.”
SO Julius Caesar is one of the most famous “assassinations” in world history – did the assassins accomplish what they wanted? did they change world history? no, and ‘probably not.’
Obviously the Senate assassins ended up bringing about what they were trying to prevent – but the Roman Republic was having other problems before they killed Caesar. SO the names might have been different, but there would have eventually been an “Emperor” even if they hadn’t assassinated Julius Caesar.
… of course William Shakespeare implies that Julius Caesar would have ruled wisely and Rome would have been better off WITHOUT the assassination – but historical hindsight is always 20/20
Abraham Lincoln
John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln on April 14, 1865. Confederacy “sympathizers” had been trying to assassinate Lincoln for a long time – and if they had managed to assassinate Lincoln early in the “War Between the States” it is probable that the “Union” would have let the Confederacy secede.
Of course that is just me speculating – it certainly wasn’t a popular war. the Democrats ran General George B. McClellan for POTUS in 1864 – who ran on a “peace” platform. Of course McClellan still wanted to restore the Union, I’m guessing he thought a “negotiated” peace would be possible.
i.e. if McClellen had become POTUS slavery might have survived as part of a “negotiated peace?” just me speculating …
The one thing that IS 100% sure is that John Wilkes Booth did NOT achieve what he wanted by assassinating President Lincoln. Not only did he NOT get what he hoped for, he (with metaphysical certitude) made reconstruction WORSE for the South.
JFK
I tend to agree with the “lone gunman” theory with the John F Kennedy assassination. Yes, endless conspiracy theories exist – MOST of those theories look (to me) like attempts to deal with the “uncertainty” introduced if one nut job can kill the President of the United States.
i.e. if one nut job can shoot the POTUS then is anyone “safe?” Well, one of the things Kennedy’s assassin had going for him was that it was hard to imagine someone wanting to shoot the POTUS.
Obviously Lincoln’s assassination was during a time of war. McKinley’s nut job assassin in 1901 acted at close range. The attempt on Toddy Roosevelt in 1912 also happened at close range (Teddy’s 50 page speech and eyeglass case slowed down the bullet – Teddy gave his speech and THEN got medical treatment. The bullet couldn’t be removed – Teddy Roosevelt died in his sleep 7 years later due to pulmonary embolism – no idea if the bullet contributed to his death …)
SO previous POTUS assassination attempts had all happened at close range – which was probably what the Secret Service was worried about in November 1963 – not a long distance rifle shot …
What was the shooters goal in shooting JFK? Well, this is where all the conspiracy theories kick in – MY guess is simply that the shooter was a nut job and he THOUGHT that shooting the POTUS would somehow make him “happy.”
McKinley’s shooter was some nut job “anarchist” who was lashing out at “governments” in general, Teddy Roosevelt’s shooter was very obviously deranged – he thought McKinley’s ghost was telling him to shoot Teddy? SO JFK’s shooter thinking that he would be “remembered” for shooting the POTUS us just as plausible as those two motives.
The guy that shot JFK’s assassin wasn’t functioning at a particularly high level either – but that is more speculation on my part …
Did ANY of those shooters get what they wanted? No.
Deranged Shooters
The problem with “deranged shooters” is that they can never be totally eliminated. If someone gets to the point where they think shooting at someone famous or shooting into a school is somehow doing to make them “happy” then they are an obvious danger to society in general.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty
Of course shrugging our collecting shoulders in resignation and/or cowering in fear is the WORST possible option. A little basic security can go a long way with “crowd shooters” – and again, these deranged shooters don’t just wake up one morning and decide to go on a shooting spree.
SO “de-glamorize” the deranged shooters is obviously step 1. Making it harder for criminals and mentally unstable folks to get firearms is always a good idea.
Also don’t advertise a lack of security – “gun free zones” have just become an invitation for deranged shooters. I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be an emphasis on protecting vulnerable targets – just don’t hang up signs advertising the fact that a bad guy with a weapon won’t have to worry about anyone confronting them.
Leave a Reply