I've been learning a new way of thinking that I have found very useful. I now see my desires and wishes as feelings of entitlement. In other words, I am recognizing that I feel entitled to whatever it is I desire: food, sex, laziness, money, ease of living, freedom from challenge, or whatever. The reason I feel entitled is because those things, apart from everything else in the world, are very good. And there is no reason why I should not do those things apart from the consequences they bring. Since I believe I am entitled to a joyful and happy life, I would thus have every right to enjoy every pleasure. Yet, I refrain from these actions for one reason: they have consequences. And it is the consequences, not the actions themselves, that bear on whether or not I should do something.
Recognizing that has been helpful because I no longer need to tell myself: "Doing that is BAD!" Instead, I simply review my past experiences and make a decision whether or not would be wise.
From that perspective I no longer need to make a judgment on whether or not any individual action is good or bad but rather whether or not good or bad will come of it for me. The best life for me is therefore nuanced and idiographic because each circumstance must be weighed by my own knowledge of how that experience will effect me. This takes a great amount of self-knowledge, which I may not always have, but it also prepares me to watch my future reactions so that I learn about myself.
As I see it, God made all things and, therefore, all things are good in themselves. But by the very nature of our decision to do evil with what is good, we corrupt what is good (I will spare you Genesis 3 and other Biblical accounts). The fact is that I have tendencies to do evil. By realizing what those tendencies are I can adjust my behavior so that love and goodness becomes the new rule of how I live, rather than any judgment on particular actions.
For example, I can make the decision not to eat a certain comfort food when I feel like I desperately need something to make me feel better. While at other times I know I can eat this food, I realize that refraining at that time is necessary because I know that eating to satisfy desires other than hunger can turn a snowball into an avalanche. In that very moment, I feel entitled to feel better by eating that food but I surrender my entitlement for my own good.
So what does entitlement have to do with all of this? Well, the truth is that I need to recognize my inner world in order to understand how to best meet my own needs. By labeling my desires as feelings of entitlement, I am accepting my desires, thereby preparing myself to explore my feelings and discover my true needs. The concept of entitlement may not be the best way of thinking about desires for everyone but it seems to work for me.
2 comments:
slight problem with this way of thinking - something only becomes 'sinful' when we can see the consequences or theorise about consequences. is there not an absolute morality as well? and surely humans are poor at linking their behaviour to consequences - you are a psychologist after all and insightless vicious circles are surely the heart of what you deal with?
oh, and what about sins of 'omisson' and 'bad stewardship' - where do they fit in?
just some thoughts. this might be a nice idea to get through to people who don't know God or to help us lessen guilt and i certainly believe that christianity 'makes sense' in terms of the consequences of following and not following it, but i wouldn't like to be so humanist in my foundations?
happy christmas - ps, i am just off to manhattan 15th to 20th - you around? rob ;-)
I disagree that this leads to the conclusion that something only becomes sinful when we see the consequences. First of all, I accept that God sees consequences better than I ever could. Secondly, I recognize that in my past experiences I am susceptible to tainted reasoning and therefore must accept the wisdom of others. I feel "entitled" to think the way I normally think but surrender to the wisdom of God and others.
I agree there is an absolute morality but I disagree that what constitutes a sin for one person will be a sin for another person. While there seems to be some sins that are universally bad - murder, idolatry, adultery - other sins like drinking seem to be wrong only to those who do it. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 8, there is a law of conscience that plays a part in what is right and wrong. Morality is determined in part by consequences and in part by our own inner state of mind.
I would certainly not recommend this way of thinking to someone who has demonstrated that they have an impaired sense of self-regulation. Often you just need to accept the moral direction of those above you. But there is the goal that we will learn to regulate our behavior in certain realms, even if we will need continued guidance in other areas.
Finally, sins of omission and bad stewardship are addressed by our feelings of entitlement to hold back something good from another person. The fact that we have the desire to hold back tells us that another part of us wants to give. Knowing that we cannot give to everyone, we make decisions about who we will give our time, resources, or money to.
Great questions Rob. I don't know if I adequately answered them or if my mind is just set on rebelliously holding on to this despite good arguments to the contrary... All I know is that this thinking seems to work for me in producing right behavior.
As for sins of omission and bad stewardship,
Post a Comment