The first reason is internal, complicated and blah because you've been wronged. This also stems from feeling abandoned and not trusting yourself to trust again. You could be feeling this way because the opposite sex figuratively screwed you some how. The second reason is external. People just don't feel the need to have to commit. We have so many options available to us today that if something isn't going our way we don't have to deal with it. We can just Up and Leave. We do this when it comes to work and our jobs- the average person in Canada will work approx. 10- 15 jobs in their lifetime. We do this when it comes insurance or cell phone providers. Subsequently, we even do this in our marriages and relationships. So it either boils down to : you don't know how to commit because you once did and it didn't work out OR you don't have to commit because there is always something better or you don't know how. Either way, it's an issue. It get's worst over time if you ignore it.
Solution? I think it's really up to you and what's important to you. Like any problem or addiction it's not an issue unless it's impacting you and those around you. You need to be dedicated! It takes self realization (pinpointing your issues), self analysis (how did it begin, how often do you feel this way, who made you feel this way etc,), venting (talk to someone- fam, friends, professional help, write it out etc.), research (read self-help books, google it, check online forums etc.) and take baby steps. There is no simple solution. But at least you can start somewhere.
I was reading about the idea of constrained maximization. I think this interestingly applies to two people that have commitment issues in common. If you're curious... have a read below. Gauthier has a solution for all of us that could apply to this subject. In a nut shell it comes down to a mutual understanding. Even if you're looking out for yourself it usually works to your advantage if you cooperate. If you're the techy - math/science type you're going to love this.
Where interests conflict, it is, obviously, impossible for everyone to succeed in achieving their interests as they stand. A morality will need to say whose interests are to be permitted to be acted on and whose not; or alternatively, to dictate some sort of scaling-down of aims so that the aims everyone is permitted to act on can be accomplished. But that requires some kind of modification of egoism.
Prisoner's Dilemmas
Prisoner's Dilemma (PD) has received an enormous amount of well-justified attention in the past forty years or so, since it was first formulated. We may restate and generalize the problem as follows, for a two-person case: A and B are so related that
(1) A's best outcome is B's worst and vice-versa;
(2) There are intermediate outcomes, 2nd and 3rd best, such that their interests are identical as between them: A's 2nd best is the same as B's, A's 3rd the same as B's;
(3) If either party attempts to get his best, then the other party's best response is such that both will get their 3rd best; and finally,
(4) Both parties have as available options actions which would secure 2nd best for each.
Here is a generalized diagrammatic depiction of PD situations. Each agent must choose between only two options, x ("cooperate") and y ("defect"). Both doing x gets each his 2nd best; both doing y gets each his 3rd best; one doing x and the other y gets the person who does y his best outcome and gets the person who does x his worst outcome.
The profound problem posed by Prisoner's Dilemmas is this: that if each person acts with a view to achieving his best outcome as independently assessed, then each will in fact achieve their next-worst outcome as so assessed. Each agent reasons as follows: "If the other does y, then I should do y, for otherwise I shall come out worst; but if the other does x, then I should also do y, for then I come out best!" The trouble is that if both reason that way, both will come out third best (next-worse).
It's called a "dilemma" because it seems paradoxical to say that everyone's doing his best action won't get anyone his best result, or even his second best – when getting that kind of result was the whole point of performing the action!
Why is Egoism susceptible to the prisoner's dilemma problem? Because in these situations, we do not do best, individually, by performing our individually-considered best actions! Aiming at maximum self-interest defeats the achievement of maximum, or even second-best, self-interest.
The Assurance Problem
Prisoner's dilemmas require a certain discipline for their solution. A and B may agree with each other to do x rather than y. But how does either know that the other will in fact keep his agreement, since, after all, it will pay him to cheat, if you keep your end up? And if I don't know he won't cheat, my best response, even if I would otherwise have been prepared to go along and do my bit, by doing x, is to head him off and do y myself. We need assurance, that is, trust.
But how do we achieve this? By agreeing: that is, by consulting with each other, seeing what is in our mutually best interests, indicating to each other that that is what we will do – and then doing it. The latter is the rub, of course. If we didn't trust each other, what would we do? Go home and do just the opposite of what we said – thus putting us back in the arms race? Yes. So we need trust, somehow. And where is this to come from?
Perhaps the answer is this: we will instil in everyone, and ourselves, the attitude of foregoing self-interest, aiming instead for the optimum rather than the maximum. The optimum is the best we can mutually do. In that sense, it too is a "maximum". The person who aims for his independently considered maximum is the problem. But co-operation is the proposed outcome of self-interest when we take the rational responses of others into account in our practical reasoning.
Comments
Post a Comment