tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833987307941661338.post7611048294372316110..comments2023-06-14T05:10:07.234-07:00Comments on Little Happinesses: impulselittle happinesses:http://www.blogger.com/profile/00645406300267032741noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833987307941661338.post-90972266336047464172010-02-02T01:42:11.505-08:002010-02-02T01:42:11.505-08:00Follow the impulse. Be aware of the consequences,...Follow the impulse. Be aware of the consequences, but do not be their prisoner. Above all else, keep it in perspective. Your fate will not be decided by whether you choose to take the bus home or walk and get lost in Ladd's Addition... though I suppose today it might have been. :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07075599588570845197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833987307941661338.post-2573393955105782322010-01-25T01:22:45.416-08:002010-01-25T01:22:45.416-08:00I think that for me personally, it's about the...I think that for me personally, it's about the volume of moral decisions that one is making. Impulsiveness, or spontaneity seems like a description of transitory emotional states and, in my mind, if you want to be confident that you're making the "right" moral decisions (whatever <i>those</i> are) then you should be using logic/rationality to determine the "right" course of action. (The <b>right</b> course of action being determined by your individual values (which may be emotional at root)).<br /><br />If the decisions you're talking about are <i>truly</i> morally neutral ("Should I wear the brown shoes or the black ones?" "Should I go around the block to the left, or to the right?" etc) then I think that maybe spontaneity, or impulsiveness, or coin-flipping, or divination, or anything else would be an acceptable factor in your determination. However, as you indicated in your post, I wouldn't imagine that many people would be comfortable using a coin flip with respect to their moral decisions. (<i>eg</i>"Should I have an abortion?" "Will I give to charity this year, or use that same money to purchase a larger television for myself?" ________ {insert other moral examples here. It's easy, just imagine that ones actions might impact others and then think about what you would want those effects to be.})<br /><br />To me, for better or worse, I see the vast majority of decisions that I think about (and many of the ones that I don't ever realize I <i>should</i> be thinking about) as moral decisions. Everything from my immediate impact on the people that I love, to the kind of example that I'm setting for others, to the most abstract and causally-removed of repercussions of my actions is considered in my calculation of what the right thing to do is. I may not always be able to get all the way through the analysis, but I at least attempt to make moral decisions as considered and thoughtful as I can.<br /><br />So, I don't disagree with your sentiment that people should be themselves, and maybe for some people that means reveling in spontaneous decisions, or as Bush the Younger famously touted "going with your gut," but with respect to moral actions, that seems like not a wholly reliable/reproducible way to do the right thing.<br /><br />I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on what exactly your moral responsibilities are. Not to request a tome in response to a fourteen word question, but I've been recently engaged in a debate about what effects of one's actions one is responsible for. If I pull the trigger to kill someone am I responsible? If I convince someone else to kill someone (vis-a-vis my pointed persuasive skills ;-) or just by hiring them) am I responsible still? What about if I'm a part of a military command that issues orders to kill a thousand people? Or if I'm the secretary that types and disseminates the order to kill a thousand people? What I'm trying to get at is whether you think that we're responsible for the secondary or subsequent impacts of our actions. If you do think so, then I'd imagine that it quickly shifts the balance as far as volume (or percentage) of decisions that have moral implications. The person I was talking to took the position that we are <i>not at all</i> responsible for the subsequent effects of our actions. If that's the case, then it certainly limits down the amount of moral decisions we're making and increases the realm where impulse could be a deciding factor.James Ofsinkhttp://www.james.ofsink.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2833987307941661338.post-87631395300659007652010-01-24T22:59:58.211-08:002010-01-24T22:59:58.211-08:00"Impulsive" has a negative connotation. ..."Impulsive" has a negative connotation. I generally use it to describe someone who is constantly putting their own needs over others, without regard for them. I think you should call it "spontaneity" instead. That makes it sound better. A spontaneous person is one who acts without great premeditation.<br /><br />Who would you rather be with? Someone who is "impulsive" or someone who is "spontaneous?" <br /><br />You could probably find a happy medium if you just planned a bit — like making a phone call before you skip out on making dinner. ;-)DocSocrateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09888934259859579553noreply@blogger.com