Italy
So I’m thinking… having spent an hour on various websites, I can spend fourteen days staying in three-and-four-star hotels in Milan, Genoa and Pisa… including flights and trains it’ll come to about 900 euro. Figure half that again for spending money (good cheap restaurants but a couple of expensive ones too) and I’ll have change from a thousand english pounds.
Yes I know, that’s still a huge quantity of money to spend on two weeks eating nice food in Italy and watching the Tuscan moon rise above the gently lapping mediterranean. But really… when it comes down to it… what the hell else should I do with my money if not that? When I’m lying on my death-bed, what thousand-pound memory will outstrip my two week gastronomic tour of northwestern Italy?
But it’s the flight that’s bothering me. And travelling overland from Ireland to Italy turns my fortnight of lazing in the sun into something else entirely. Hmmm… we shall see.
sounds nice….
August 16th, 2006 | 12:23am
by L
I wonder how much such personal dilemmas are fuelled by our pitiful need to have integrity. We have stated our position, and now we do the opposite. We let our desires make hypocrites of us.
I sometimes think scruples are a load of bollocks.
August 16th, 2006 | 2:48am
by Joel
I dunno Joel. Sometimes I agree with that view of course, but by and large I don’t view the need for integrity to be pitiful (at least not in any pejorative sense, though perhaps in its smallness?)
I have a quasi-religious view that human beings are not merely monkeys. I believe that we are also moral agents… by accident not design, no doubt… and while it is a struggle to integrate that into our monkey self, it is nonetheless the struggle that gives human life meaning.
So while a decision not to holiday in Italy (e.g.) is a denial of desire; I’d also argue that it’s more than that. That viewing it as ‘only’ a denial of desire ignores the role that such a decision plays in further integration of the moral and the mundane. The road to authenticity isn’t a hedonistic rush to fulfill every desire, every impulse. Rather it’s about seeing beyond desire.
Not that you’re unaware of any this, my learned friend. But what’s a blog about if not stating the obvious in terms that make it seem less so?
August 16th, 2006 | 7:31pm
by Jim
After I wrote that about ‘our pitiful need to have integrity’ I thought perhaps it could do with a little bit of explanation.
I believe we either act with integrity or we don’t, and if we have to mull it over then that is that old ‘pitiful need’ kicking in. And I tend to think any act of integrity that comes after a lengthy pondering of pros and cons isn’t really integrity, in that it doesn’t spring from a true inner impulse but rather a weighing of things in the balance, which to me can only ever be a pragmatic decision, not a decision of integrity, since that needs no such weighing. Of course, by wrestling with it this time we are better placed to know where we stand next time, and this appears to be the ‘integration of the moral and the mundane’ that you mention. Next time, we can act with integrity, this time, we’ll just muddle our way through. Hence, a pitiful need.
As for ‘denial of desire’ being more than, well, a denial of desire… yes, I agree. It is taking a stand; it is, seemingly paradoxically, freedom. We purchase by our denial of desire, we think, a footing on the road to somewhere else we want to go, which is usually, at least for those who still have minds, living according to some prerogative we’ve set out for ourselves. But it usually boils down to sacrificing one short-term obvious desire in order to gain some longer-term less obvious desire (having integrity, being one example). It’s usually best though, I think, to get out of the pit where most people spend their lives, namely keeping their dilemmas to the level of swatting flies, such as whether to buy a gas guzzler or not, whether to take a plane flight or not. These dilemmas are middle-class angst posing as the biting questions of the day.
You may disagree on that, but what are blog comments for?
August 17th, 2006 | 12:31am
by Joel
As I understand it, Joel’s saying that the only acts of integrity are the ones we don’t have to mull over first. I think perhaps we have slightly different definitions of the word.
I don’t see why integrity has to be instinctive or impulsive rather than considered. The phenomenal ability of the human brain to think in the abstract means we can see a variety of possible consequences, understand wider impacts other than the ones we immediately see, and indeed have utterly conflicting feelings simultaneously.
Commonly, we have to weigh up the pros and cons of our immediate impulses over longer term considerations, or our selfish desires over altrustic desires, our guilt over our pleasure. Guilt might be some hairshirting self-flagellation, but it may be the voice of your conscience.
We may jump either way in the end, but there’s some working out to do first. This is an important component in wise judgement.
As Joel says, it can often boils down to sacrificing a short-term obvious desire for a longer term less obvious one. I don’t see the problem with that.
A desire to punch someone is immediate and obvious, but I can reject that because I don’t want to normalise violence or be thought of as one who is violent. The vagueness of my contribution to acceptable social norms and to my personal reputation readily outweigh the obvious vengeant pleasure of punching the fucker.
To ponder these and make a choice that we believe is the right one is an act of integrity; it makes your choice one that you believe to be morally upright and sound.
I think I would define integirty as choosing to do what I honestly believe to be the right thing, irrespective of how convenient or easy it is.
On a slight tangent, the decision on whether to buy a gas guzzler or to fly are, quite literally, the burning questions of the day for us all, no matter what hazy socio-economic class Joel wants to put them in.
The questions to ask are; ‘is climate change a serious threat?’ and ‘if so, what am I doing about it?’.
On the first, there is no credible denial any more. If we carry on as we are, we’re talking about water shortages for hundreds of millions of people, the ruination of the land that feeds billions, an 8 degree drop in the temperature of Western Europe, drying of the Amazon forests and fires that would follow.
Indeed, climate change is not only the largest threat humanity has ever faced but there’s a real chance it could be the last. And whether we survive or not, we’re going to take out a lot of other species.
So we come to the second question. Those who contribute more emissions than are sustainable are saying one of two things; ‘I deserve someone else’s share and I’ll take it without their consent’ or ‘I don’t care about the consequences of climate change’. Neither of these is morally defensible.
Those who fly and drive gas guzzlers not only consume more than a sustainble fair share, but almost without exception they do so as a luxury they could live without, and they do so at the expense of others in future being able to live at all.
August 23rd, 2006 | 1:16pm
by Merrick
I wasn’t implying that climate change isn’t a serious issue. Far from it. The “middle-class angst” aspect of the dilemma of climate change is having the money to take flights, wanting to take flights, but feeling you shouldn’t take flights. Personally, I haven’t been on a plane for six years and have considered that I may never go on a plane again, and I have never owned a car and have no plans to acquire one. I gave up wrestling with my carbon footprint quite some years ago. It’s the people for whom is it still a dilemma, especially ones who should know better, that are the problem. Hence, I said it is mostly a middle-class angst thing, which is a generalisation for the sake of making a point. Frankly, I have little time for dilly-dallying with issues, people should either take flights and buy gas guzzlers unashamedly, or act according to their conscience.
Those who continually bang their pulpit on climate change and the need to change our personal behaviour (high moral groundsters are so wearying) usually have their heads in the sand over the other side of the problem, the likelihood that nothing we personally do will make a blind bit of difference and that the climate is going to change anyway and the real issue is how we are going to live then.
Yes, integrity can come out of wrestling with something, but the very fact of having to wrestle with it implies that integrity on the issue is yet to be settled. That was my point. I don’t see much point in saying that what is essentially a pragmatic decision has integrity. Yes, sure, but only after the fact.
August 23rd, 2006 | 2:16pm
by Joel
Thanks for clearing up my partial misunderstanding there Joel.
On the climate thing, as a pulpit banger I nonetheless think it is indeed highly likely that we’ll just burn all the hydrocarbons we can and exacerbate climate change to the greatest possible degree.
Thing is, the more we say ‘there’s nothing we can do’, the more we encourage inaction and so make it likely to be true that nothing happens.
As that outcome is so catastrophic, I’m willing to push hard for a long shot that means millions of people and other animals are not wiped out and many more abandoned to enormous suffering simply because two or three generations of people wanted to use aircraft and eat strawberries all year round. It really isn’t too late to avert the worst of it, but it needs swift and radical action.
Certainly we do need to look at Plan B though. One of the reasons I’m particularly inspired by the Camp for Climate Action is that it not only explicitly pushes a clear need for the sort of action I’m talking about, but it is also addressing issues that we face whichever path is taken.
Enormous social change is inevitable, but we still get to influence what kind. The age of abundant cheap energy is going to end within the lifetime of most of us reading this, and many of the things we can to cut our present carbon emissions are also the things we’ll need when cheap energy is over, and if climate change really kicks in.
Relocalising, increased self sufficency, community organisation; they all apply whether its for the energy, carbon reduction, or skills-for-how-to-live-after thing that motivates us.
You’re dead right that it is a likelihood that we’ll fuck things up till we’re forced to stop. But if we believe that we shouldn’t do that then it means we should try not to, and seek to persuade others. If there is even a slender chance of success then the only guarantee of our failure is a refusal to try. More, any reduction in consumption now buys us more time to turn it around.
I don’t see the ‘middle class angst’ thing at all (nor understand why you think it doesn’t apply to people from other socio-economic groups).
The things that overconsumption provides are often really nice. That’s why people want to buy them. Who thinks they are personally overpampered? Who doesn’t want to go to somewhere really exotic every now and again? They appeal to all of us to some degree, even those who have no hesitation in refusing them; it doesn’t mean those refusers have no integrity.
People who do something but feel bad about it may well be on the path to stopping doing it altogether. Some of our morality is obvious and unmovable, but much of it evolves and mutates with the influence of experience and new information.
Commonly, people who are challenged over something wrong will not suddenly go ‘oh I’ve been so wrong’ when challenged, but it influences their future choices. It’s up to all of us to keep each other well informed and with keen consciences.
Even if we do go ahead and do something we think isn’t good, our guilt is the thing that stops us enthusing to others and encouraging the activity, it slows our progress down that path that is proving morally uncomfortable and contributes to evolving our morality so we take a different decision in future. As such, doing something but ashamedly has positive uses.
Very few decisions are so obvious and black and white that we don’t have to ponder them. I don’t have to weigh up my use of a bike or abstinence from fucking children in the eyesocket. But on many issues, there’s some weighing up to be done, and I’d say any decision that means we take the choice we believe to be right one is a decision of integrity.
Though, as I said, I think some of the stuff we’re disagreeing on is simply definition of the word. But I’m glad of the interesting meanderings of intellect it’s stimulated. As you say, but what are blog comments for?
August 23rd, 2006 | 7:35pm
by Merrick
Well I can’t argue against your wanting to push for the long shot, Merrick, there’s something noble in that.
The term “middle-class angst” shouldn’t be examined too closely. I’m not concentrating on socio-economic class so much as using the term as shorthand for a certain kind of hypocrisy among so-called intellectuals who “mean well” and imagine they should be given a pat on the back for “being in touch with the issues” but when it comes down to it just pay lip-service to their conscience. I find such people fundamentally dishonest and am not willing to allow them to claim any measure of integrity for what is mostly hot air and trifling semi-adjustments to outlook and lifestyle. I have more time for people who are honestly shameless in their consumption of resources, because they at least are not lying to themselves.
Italy’s a lovely place, but at this rate I think Jim’s going to be ironing his hair shirt.
August 24th, 2006 | 8:38am
by Joel