personal control in my opinion is something a person makes them selves and has the opinion to choose. They make choices that may help them achieve something and lead them to the right path and then they have the choice of taking the wrong path. This can not be taken over by some one else because personal control is somthing that is with in a person and the person had the choice to make it.
Your point of personal control giving the opportunity to choose the "right path" or "wrong path" brings with it much debate.
One might ask, what defines the "right path" or "wrong path" in life? Does its meaning differ for you and me? Is it determined by our faith, moral values, experience or other belief/understanding? Is there such thing as a right or wrong path?
Furthermore, if personal control is really in our hands, as you say it is "something a person makes themselves and has the opinion to choose", then what happens in the case of someone who is not viewed as having the capacity to make a choice alone (i.e. an elderly woman in a coma for a lengthy period who isn't cognisant of her surroundings; doctors suggest to her children that she will never awaken from this state and therefore should be taken off life support)?
If choice is "something that is within a person", shouldn't it mean they are always able to have full control over choice in their life?
First of all, the right and wrong path is to deal with ethics, I'm going to address the original question.
A distinction must be made between having personal control and the physical ability to do so. All though one may argue personal control is the ability to have control, I argue it isn't. Instead personal control is choice. And that choice, whether physically expressed or held within, is still present within a person. The ability to choose may be taken away, but the essence of choice within can never be taken from a person.
I agree with JaWa, choice(or personal control; used interchangeably) is something within a person. Now, this absolutely does not mean "they are always able" to make a choice. Your example of the comatose woman is entirely valid. However, to make a point of argument, personal control is even still within a person(ex.the comatose woman). For instance, she may not be physically cognitive to exercise her personal control, but still within herself is the desire to choose.
Choice is both an ability and a desire, If both can be taken from a person(comatose takes only the ability), I argue no longer will they be defined as a person. Therefore a comatose woman is still a person because the desire is ever present within her.
I agree with Ryan’s perspective on personal control. Personal control is choice. Regardless of one’s circumstances, whether it is being a drug addict or an individual deemed clinically insane, the desire to choose exists within the person. To answer the second question: I believe that the drug addict has more personal control than the individual deemed clinically insane. The person who is deemed clinically insane has no control over his/her choice. In other words, he/she didn’t choose to become insane. Whereas, a drug addict, initially, chooses to take the drugs. Although you may say that eventually the drug addict also becomes incapable of choosing as they are addicted to the drugs, the drug addict is mentally aware of his/her choice. The only difference is that the drug addict’s body is physically dependent on the drugs. Their body’s crave for drugs brings them to take it over and over again; while the clinically insane person is most likely not even aware of his/her condition. Because the drug addict is aware, their will to undo their addiction may bring them back. Hence, the drug addict has more personal control.
Personal control is control over how we think and act. One who has personal control is a very wise person, because personal control is very hard to achieve. For one to have good personal control is hard to achieve because we have a monkey mind- our thoughts jump from one topic to another and never ending all day while we are conscious. We humans are also very tempted in some cases to do something we know is wrong: go out and party or whatever to do something illegal, because we all want to have a good time. It’s hard to stay home and do the right thing like read a book. Also patience is a type of self control those who are patient succeed in many things, everyone knows the quote: “patience is a virtue.” That’s why Buddhists practice self control by meditating. There are different ways of meditating but all aim in calming the mind and focusing on one topic or none at all- just calming and slowing the mind and think of nothing. Seems easy to do but is actually very hard even for thirty seconds. Practising self control is a great skill not many possess. It could help in day to day choices we make which define ourselves. Who has more personal control a drug addict or an insane person? I agree with Vrishti that a drug addict has less personal control than an insane person, because mentally ill people get their condition by misfortune. So therefore they cannot really control their actions because they have a disorder, unlike drug addicts who also have a problem but one that they caused on themsleves. I think that addicts have only the drugs in thier way which is something they can isolate out of their lives, making them have more personal contol. Over a person who cannot do anything about their condition.
In my opinion personal control is, the ability to stop one’s self from giving in to impulses and weighing the consequences of a certain action and determining if it is good or not, and if not then being able to deter from the negative action. I think that between a person deemed clinically insane and a drug addict, it depends on the person and the level of his or her addiction or mental health problem and since a lot of people who are addicts can become clinically insane it is too difficult to determine who has more self control.
I believe personal control is the abilty to control the emotions and feeling that surround the train of thoughts you have. Sometimes people when angry or when emotionally fustrated say somehting that they try taking back or make an excuse for saying. I believe emotions may cause you to lose personal control. Even with upset emotions personal control is still a choice. If you choose to reveal your thoughts to someone your are willingly doing so. A drug addict has more personal control as they knew what they were getting themselves into when they started taking the drug. They are aware of the negative health risks as it clearly says on ciggarette boxes but try to downplay that fact or ignore it. A clinically insane person has a psychological disturbance in their mind. They don't have the power to all of a sudden say I'm going to stop acting crazy. Drug addicts affect their hormones by doing drugs which affects personal control as the feeling of not wanting to quit. However mind strength is way stronger than physical strength. Shaolin monks prove this by being able to perform incredible feats while only being 140 pounds.
Well personal control to me is being able to control your animal barbaric instincts. If not we might eat each other when we are hungry or rape someone when we are in heat. Which certain people do because they have no self control, but the drug addict might not have as much personal control over certain things like the man who is clinically insane, but then again the who is clinically insane might not be able to control himself in certain situations. Sort of like kind of one doesn't best the other because they both have different advantages or disadvantages. But personally a person who is clinically insane might have more self control than others. I mean if you go to a insane asylum they don't all just jump at you, its just that it takes that one thing to set them off, like their taboo. A man who kills kids in front of their cameras but then goes to his day jump is still insane but he will control himself more in public compared to the drunk or cocaine addict that goes around looking for his fix.
personal control in my opinion is something a person makes them selves and has the opinion to choose. They make choices that may help them achieve something and lead them to the right path and then they have the choice of taking the wrong path. This can not be taken over by some one else because personal control is somthing that is with in a person and the person had the choice to make it.
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting back, Jawa.
ReplyDeleteYour point of personal control giving the opportunity to choose the "right path" or "wrong path" brings with it much debate.
One might ask, what defines the "right path" or "wrong path" in life? Does its meaning differ for you and me? Is it determined by our faith, moral values, experience or other belief/understanding? Is there such thing as a right or wrong path?
Furthermore, if personal control is really in our hands, as you say it is "something a person makes themselves and has the opinion to choose", then what happens in the case of someone who is not viewed as having the capacity to make a choice alone (i.e. an elderly woman in a coma for a lengthy period who isn't cognisant of her surroundings; doctors suggest to her children that she will never awaken from this state and therefore should be taken off life support)?
If choice is "something that is within a person", shouldn't it mean they are always able to have full control over choice in their life?
To respond to Abbas' comment.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the right and wrong path is to deal with ethics, I'm going to address the original question.
A distinction must be made between having personal control and the physical ability to do so. All though one may argue personal control is the ability to have control, I argue it isn't. Instead personal control is choice. And that choice, whether physically expressed or held within, is still present within a person. The ability to choose may be taken away, but the essence of choice within can never be taken from a person.
I agree with JaWa, choice(or personal control; used interchangeably) is something within a person. Now, this absolutely does not mean "they are always able" to make a choice. Your example of the comatose woman is entirely valid. However, to make a point of argument, personal control is even still within a person(ex.the comatose woman). For instance, she may not be physically cognitive to exercise her personal control, but still within herself is the desire to choose.
Choice is both an ability and a desire, If both can be taken from a person(comatose takes only the ability), I argue no longer will they be defined as a person. Therefore a comatose woman is still a person because the desire is ever present within her.
I agree with Ryan’s perspective on personal control. Personal control is choice. Regardless of one’s circumstances, whether it is being a drug addict or an individual deemed clinically insane, the desire to choose exists within the person.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the second question:
I believe that the drug addict has more personal control than the individual deemed clinically insane. The person who is deemed clinically insane has no control over his/her choice. In other words, he/she didn’t choose to become insane. Whereas, a drug addict, initially, chooses to take the drugs. Although you may say that eventually the drug addict also becomes incapable of choosing as they are addicted to the drugs, the drug addict is mentally aware of his/her choice. The only difference is that the drug addict’s body is physically dependent on the drugs. Their body’s crave for drugs brings them to take it over and over again; while the clinically insane person is most likely not even aware of his/her condition. Because the drug addict is aware, their will to undo their addiction may bring them back. Hence, the drug addict has more personal control.
Personal control is control over how we think and act. One who has personal control is a very wise person, because personal control is very hard to achieve. For one to have good personal control is hard to achieve because we have a monkey mind- our thoughts jump from one topic to another and never ending all day while we are conscious. We humans are also very tempted in some cases to do something we know is wrong: go out and party or whatever to do something illegal, because we all want to have a good time. It’s hard to stay home and do the right thing like read a book. Also patience is a type of self control those who are patient succeed in many things, everyone knows the quote: “patience is a virtue.” That’s why Buddhists practice self control by meditating. There are different ways of meditating but all aim in calming the mind and focusing on one topic or none at all- just calming and slowing the mind and think of nothing. Seems easy to do but is actually very hard even for thirty seconds. Practising self control is a great skill not many possess. It could help in day to day choices we make which define ourselves. Who has more personal control a drug addict or an insane person? I agree with Vrishti that a drug addict has less personal control than an insane person, because mentally ill people get their condition by misfortune. So therefore they cannot really control their actions because they have a disorder, unlike drug addicts who also have a problem but one that they caused on themsleves. I think that addicts have only the drugs in thier way which is something they can isolate out of their lives, making them have more personal contol. Over a person who cannot do anything about their condition.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion personal control is, the ability to stop one’s self from giving in to impulses and weighing the consequences of a certain action and determining if it is good or not, and if not then being able to deter from the negative action. I think that between a person deemed clinically insane and a drug addict, it depends on the person and the level of his or her addiction or mental health problem and since a lot of people who are addicts can become clinically insane it is too difficult to determine who has more self control.
ReplyDeleteI believe personal control is the abilty to control the emotions and feeling that surround the train of thoughts you have. Sometimes people when angry or when emotionally fustrated say somehting that they try taking back or make an excuse for saying. I believe emotions may cause you to lose personal control. Even with upset emotions personal control is still a choice. If you choose to reveal your thoughts to someone your are willingly doing so.
ReplyDeleteA drug addict has more personal control as they knew what they were getting themselves into when they started taking the drug. They are aware of the negative health risks as it clearly says on ciggarette boxes but try to downplay that fact or ignore it. A clinically insane person has a psychological disturbance in their mind. They don't have the power to all of a sudden say I'm going to stop acting crazy. Drug addicts affect their hormones by doing drugs which affects personal control as the feeling of not wanting to quit. However mind strength is way stronger than physical strength. Shaolin monks prove this by being able to perform incredible feats while only being 140 pounds.
Well personal control to me is being able to control your animal barbaric instincts. If not we might eat each other when we are hungry or rape someone when we are in heat. Which certain people do because they have no self control, but the drug addict might not have as much personal control over certain things like the man who is clinically insane, but then again the who is clinically insane might not be able to control himself in certain situations. Sort of like kind of one doesn't best the other because they both have different advantages or disadvantages. But personally a person who is clinically insane might have more self control than others. I mean if you go to a insane asylum they don't all just jump at you, its just that it takes that one thing to set them off, like their taboo. A man who kills kids in front of their cameras but then goes to his day jump is still insane but he will control himself more in public compared to the drunk or cocaine addict that goes around looking for his fix.
ReplyDelete