Theory of Habits

[fakename]

That is, what is a habit and how do habits change or develop and what relations do habits have with what is voluntary/involuntary?

My first question: does something being habitual or even naturally habitual (like being naturally heterosexual) make it more or less voluntary?

In the case of sexual orientation or morality in general, it would seem that something being naturally inborn would not be voluntary and so it would be beyond praise or blame. Yet we see too odd things which creates doubt in this conclusion. (1) God and the saints cannot be evil and it is impossible for them to will evil. Yet though it is out of their wills to be evil they still receive praise for being good. So it seems that even the natural and involuntary can be called good. (2) Straightness (sexuality) can be considered praiseworthy and yet it too is natural. So then how could nature and involuntariness be morally neutral given these examples?

 

[Regina_Love]

Give it up! There is no gay gene.

habits can start as a chosen behavior. Each time they are practiced the behavior is strengthened. Often our behaviors label our identity. People are closely identified with their careers, ie I’m a doctor, or I’m a nurse. It’s not just what they chose to do, but becomes who they are.

 

[Pugsly]

That is, what is a habit and how do habits change or develop and what relations do habits have with what is voluntary/involuntary?

My first question: does something being habitual or even naturally habitual (like being naturally heterosexual) make it more or less voluntary?

In the case of sexual orientation or morality in general, it would seem that something being naturally inborn would not be voluntary and so it would be beyond praise or blame. Yet we see too odd things which creates doubt in this conclusion. (1) God and the saints cannot be evil and it is impossible for them to will evil. Yet though it is out of their wills to be evil they still receive praise for being good. So it seems that even the natural and involuntary can be called good. (2) Straightness (sexuality) can be considered praiseworthy and yet it too is natural. So then how could nature and involuntariness be morally neutral given these examples?

To my lights…a “habit” is a chosen pathway of behavior,that is so repeatedly chosen that it “wears a pathway rut” in the character and even the human body.

Since it is a chosen pathway…it is not comparable with a male being male or a fish swimming…for example. Now, there are physical propensities that can make a person a habitual alchoholic for example…but it is still a chosen behavior.

 

[fakename]

To my lights…a “habit” is a chosen pathway of behavior,that is so repeatedly chosen that it “wears a pathway rut” in the character and even the human body.

Since it is a chosen pathway…it is not comparable with a male being male or a fish swimming…for example. Now, there are physical propensities that can make a person a habitual alchoholic for example…but it is still a chosen behavior.

Again, why would heterosexuality be good and homosexuality bad if these are involuntary (that is, not choosable habits)?

Or again, something can be a chosen pathway w/o you having a choice; the saints choose God because they cannot choose otherwise since his attractiveness in heaven is infallible. In this way, something is both voluntary and involuntary so perhaps here I should ask what exactly distinguishes these two involuntaries?

 

[Regina_Love]

Again, why would heterosexuality be good and homosexuality bad if these are involuntary (that is, not choosable habits)?

Or again, something can be a chosen pathway w/o you having a choice; the saints choose God because they cannot choose otherwise since his attractiveness in heaven is infallible. In this way, something is both voluntary and involuntary so perhaps here I should ask what exactly distinguishes these two involuntaries?

Whoa! The Saints choosing God is an exercise of their “free will” which entailed heroic sacrafices. You are way off here. They abosolutely could have chosen selfishness, and a life of sin. We are not robots.

 

[Regina_Love]

Just because it is natural to be heterosexual, does not mean it is involuntary. That logic is flawed. You must cooperate with how you are created. Humans especially are known for NOT following their instincts. Jesus always allows us “free will”. We make our own choices, and live with the consequences.

 

[Regina_Love]

Again, why would heterosexuality be good and homosexuality bad

God wants what is best for us. He warns us off of homosexuality because of it’s negative effects for all mankind. God in His great wisdom knows the outcomes of behaviors. He wishes to spare us those bad behaviors, that bring about disease, and death, and lead us to behaviors that bring forth life, and blessings.

 

[Pugsly]

Again, why would heterosexuality be good and homosexuality bad if these are involuntary (that is, not choosable habits)?

Or again, something can be a chosen pathway w/o you having a choice; the saints choose God because they cannot choose otherwise since his attractiveness in heaven is infallible. In this way, something is both voluntary and involuntary so perhaps here I should ask what exactly distinguishes these two involuntaries?

And…there are physical propensities for more feminine men and masculine women…but it is still a chosen line that is crossed.

 

[fakename]

Whoa! The Saints choosing God is an exercise of their “free will” which entailed heroic sacrafices. You are way off here. They abosolutely could have chosen selfishness, and a life of sin. We are not robots.

The saints in heaven infallibly choose God. So it is both unimaginable that they could choose otherwise and an act of free choice.

That’s the problem I am referring to.

 

[fakename]

God wants what is best for us. He warns us off of homosexuality because of it’s negative effects for all mankind. God in His great wisdom knows the outcomes of behaviors. He wishes to spare us those bad behaviors, that bring about disease, and death, and lead us to behaviors that bring forth life, and blessings.

It’s not always good for people to be given health or life, but it is always good that people should not be homosexual. Therefore heterosexuality is not for the sake of health but it is good for its own sake (its an intrinsically good thing since its opposite is intrinsically evil).

Therefore my earlier problem still stands to say nothing of the fact that even if your explanation were true, it can’t account for why homosexuality should be per se blamed and its opposite praised per se.