Thoughts vs actions


Assuming that all pedophiles molest children is about the same as saying that all heterosexual men rape women. Clearly that’s not true. By extension, we can logically deduce that some people have certain other beliefs and desires that cancel out their desire to have sex with a certain type of person.

Finding out the difference between the people who do molest and those who don’t is a very scientific and psychological topic of great importance.

Additionally, this can be applied in reverse. Asexuals are not sexually attracted to anyone, but some would still theoretically have sex with a partner either to give their partner pleasure or because they want to reproduce.

Thoughts do not automatically translate into actions. Often there are certain factors to consider. For example, I desire the taste of cheese because I like it, but after going vegan I eat different things instead because I know that buying dairy funds slaughter of cattle.

The point of all this is to say that nurture trumps nature. Educated people have more information about the consequences of certain actions. There are two main ways people are deterred from crime.

1. Empathy: “I wouldn’t want that done to me.”
2. Fear of Punishment: “I don’t want to go to jail.”

Naturally, if everyone had perfect empathy, then it would seem that crime would be nonexistent.

Advertisements

Author: chandlerklebs

I have unusual thoughts on almost every subject. I am as Pro-Life as I can possibly be. I am strongly opposed to violence of any type. That includes rape, war, and (obviously) abortion. Everything I think, speak, and write must be filtered by the effect it could have on the lives of others. If I am in any way promoting violence accidentally, please let me know.

8 thoughts on “Thoughts vs actions”

  1. “The point of all this is to say that nurture trumps nature.”

    Are you saying that you’re a cheese-eater by nature? Wouldn’t that require that the desire to eat cheese (and not merely hunger) be encoded in human DNA somewhere?

    “There are two main ways people are deterred from crime.

    1. Empathy: “I wouldn’t want that done to me.”
    2. Fear of Punishment: “I don’t want to go to jail.””

    I agree with this quite a bit and I have to ask the question:

    What’s deterring you from robbing a bank right now, in this very moment?

    1. Actually Shawn, you make a great point. The taste for cheese isn’t in my DNA, that was a poor example.

      And I have no desire to rob a bank right now. I guess it’s both empathy and I wouldn’t want to go to jail.

  2. “And I have no desire to rob a bank right now.”

    Exactly.

    “I guess it’s both empathy and I wouldn’t want to go to jail.”

    Wait… what? You just said you didn’t have that desire to rob a bank. In that case, why would you need to be deterred?

    Can’t a person simply not be interested in robbing banks?

  3. Does that say anything about thoughts vs actions?

    Wait, don’t answer that yet.

    Have you ever been so hungry you kept finding yourself thinking about food? Have you ever raided your refrigerator be because you were hungry?

    I’m going to assume “yes” on both questions. (If not, let me know.)

    The experience referenced by the answer to the first question shows that if you’re hungry enough, you’ll think about food. The experience referenced by the second shows that if you’re hungry enough, you’ll take action to get food.

    Have you ever been so hungry you found yourself thinking about food, had a thought which reminded you there was leftover pizza in the fridge, decided it was a good idea to get some, whereupon you took the action of going to the fridge, getting the pizza, and eating it.

    So, does thought lead to action or vice versa? What if they both stem from the same source? In the example above: hunger. What if thought was preparation for action?

    So, what about your cheese eating (or the lack of?) Could it be that your thoughts are the result of something else, which is also the source of your willfully not eating cheese?

    Are you not a compassionate person by nature, being an integral part of you and not something you had to learn? (nurture)

    Is the real reason you don’t eat cheese because you’re a compassionate person who doesn’t want to hurt any living thing?

    Why are you pro-life?

    If you weren’t compassionate by nature, would you still be pro-life?

    Conclusion: Nurture is an extension of nature.

    🙂

    1. “So, does thought lead to action or vice versa? What if they both stem from the same source? In the example above: hunger. What if thought was preparation for action?

      So, what about your cheese eating (or the lack of?) Could it be that your thoughts are the result of something else, which is also the source of your willfully not eating cheese?

      Are you not a compassionate person by nature, being an integral part of you and not something you had to learn? (nurture)

      Is the real reason you don’t eat cheese because you’re a compassionate person who doesn’t want to hurt any living thing?

      Why are you pro-life?

      If you weren’t compassionate by nature, would you still be pro-life?

      Conclusion: Nurture is an extension of nature.”

      This is right Shawn, at some point, the fact that I’m a compassionate person by nature is the key thing that would make me try to avoid hurting any living thing. Without this I’d probably be a pro-choice cheese eater today.

  4. Or more precisely — nature provides the impulse, the drive, the impetus, the energy, you get the idea … And nurture focuses it into a specific action, or the lack of action given the option to satisfy that drive.

    It’s nature to get hungry a drive written in our DNA, however obtaining food at any given time requires information that can’t have been coded in our DNA. That info has to be local and up to date. Animals in two different geographic locations such as a desert and a forest will get thirsty due to the hard-coded thirst drive, but will rely on methods of getting it (software) and information about where it’s located in any given season that have been learned during their lifetime.

    Nature is hardware, nuture is software. Both work together in animals capable of learning.

    They’re only opposed like supposed in the traditional nurture vs nature argument in some kinds of crazy people and in fact that’s what makes them crazy.

    The nature vs nurture argument is fundamentally flawed because it implicity presupposes the kind of counterproductive situation Jesus was referring to when he said
    “If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”

    With that said nuture can appear to trump nature, for example, it seems unnatural to not want to eat cheese if you’re hungry, but what it’s really doing is focusing it, or refining it. Your facts don’t stop you from being hungry, it excludes foods to satisfy your compassion and that doesn’t cause conflict because you can eat other stuff than cheese.

    However, if you were stuck in a cheese factory for a year you’d be faced with a moral crisis similar to that faced by survivors who have had to resort to cannibalism to survive.

    Ok, I’m way beyond the main point. To reiterate : it’s not nature vs. nurture it’s nature –> nurture and thoughts don’t result in actions, they inform them, both of which spring from a common drive.

    Whew. 😉

    1. Yep, you’ve got it right. I particularly love the part:
      “Nature is hardware, nuture is software. Both work together in animals capable of learning.”

      I think it’s a good comparison because the software is constantly updated and this is where most of the change comes from.

      And you’re right about nurture being an extension of nature. We think of them as being different but they are not opposed to each other as much as we might think. Even the nurture we experience directly flows from the fact that the other lifeforms have different DNA which may determine to some degree which foods they will tend to eat.

      But imagine a world where we lived without the need for food or water. We would never need to eat or drink anything and I imagine this would eliminate the need to steal for example. If you don’t need food or water, you don’t have use for money and therefore you wouldn’t rob the bank to get the money.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s