I’ve always found it difficult to follow through with things. Not only in action, but also in thought which seems to suggest I don’t really amount to anything, which might be true. Still, acting in itself is not something I would say is trivial; why do anything? Perhaps the world would be better off if people acted less, I’m not sure. What I am sure about, is that it is worth pondering over questions like these, because we might learn something about ourselves as well as the world around us, and I can’t imagine something more human than learning.
Why should we act? Is it to do good onto the world? Then we might only want to do good things, but many times there is no telling whether the thing we would want to do is good or bad. It is impossible to ponder over the possible impact of each action, let alone the consequences of that impact and whether it is good or not. Logically, I don’t think we should have to justify the good in each action in detail (it doesn’t seem a reasonable requirement, as mentioned before), but some justification is required, right? If we do not require justification for at least some actions, we effectively do away with personal responsibility. Acting solely to do good seems therefore impossible, at least if we want people to be able to be responsible for their actions.
Whenever I start writing, I want it to be something I believe in at the end of the road. But each time I am halfway through a piece of writing, I can’t help but disagree with myself in some way, or at least be doubtful of my conclusions and reasoning. In each sentence in the last paragraph, I can think of countless places where one might cast reasonable doubt. Even the conclusion seems a bit odd: ‘If we want people to take responsibility for their actions, acting solely good things is impossible’. Why does the first have to be true for the latter to be the case? What if there is no such thing as a good or a bad action? It is much easier to critique my own thoughts than other’s, probably because I’ve lived them instead of observed them. And while being critical to one’s own thinking is good, that should not come at the cost of the inability to have beliefs an act on them.
Just as much as I struggle to finish a text, there is a struggle in acting in general. At least, when one is concerned with solely doing good. Either we decide to let go of the idea that actions should be justified, or we accept the likelihood that things might not go the way we intend them to (or even that they go the way we intend them to, but not have the impact we would like them to have). Or, we decide not to act at all, which would still be a decision, and a pretty radical one at that. But would that be a viable option, to live a completely passive life? Take the classic trolley example, but just don’t do anything. Sit and watch all its different variations unfold before your eyes; would you be happy with that decision? That probably very much depends on your reasoning behind ‘not pulling the lever’. And if you have a good reason not to pull the lever, who is to say you didn’t act? The only reasonable scenario I can come up with, where I am not pulling the lever and I have no good reason, is when I’m scared. The only subject that is truly passive is the deer looking into the headlights of the car fast approaching.
For me, this means not to suppress fear in light of hard choices, but to acknowledge it and understand that it should not guide my actions; merely inform it. If we were to blindly act, instead of reason some of the way there when we have the opportunity, there is no justification, meaning we cannot take responsibility for it. At least, that’s what I think. Were I to defend that this essay would take another couple thousand words, and I would like to finish this act. Perhaps I’m wrong on account of justification being necessary for responsibility, but consider this my leap of faith.