Why Do Human Beings Have To Distract Ourselves? Is It Moral?

Is it within human nature to distract ourselves from uncomfortable or challenging realities, events or thoughts? This idea has been explored by philosophers such as John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant and Jean-Paul Sartre. However, at this point in time, can distractions become overbearing and are they possibly stunting the progress of humanity. This shift in distractions has gone from a child’s comforting bedtime story to calm their fear of the dark to a constant state of noise, colours and canned laughter surrounding day to day activities. Unlike the child’s fear of the dark, there is no apparent reason for this level of distraction. I believe that the reason we feel a desire to distract ourselves is that our current existence is an uncomfortable reality. From the troubling political climate to the changing climate on Earth, we are distracting ourselves to forget or ease the discomfort we experience from the world today and our inability to control events out of our hands. These distractions are not all bad however because if we got to a high level of discomfort our ability to use our time productivity would go down. Because of this, it is necessary to have a balance of distractions to productivity.

In order to answer this question, we must first establish the existence of free will. Determinists, like Pierre Simon Marquis de Laplace, believe that every event in the universe is predetermined, including moral actions. If moral decisions or actions are determined then we cannot have free will because we have no ability to choose. Emotions guide us to act a certain way but, according to C.A. Campbell, we can choose to go against those emotions when making moral decisions. For example, we could choose to be kind even if we are in a bad mood. Those sorts of events provide evidence for the theory of compatibilism. If everything is predetermined then we would not have any need for emotions because we wouldn’t be making any decisions. This makes the theory of determinism unprobable and the theory of compatibilism, where at least some events in the universe have no deterministic value, more probable. Therefore, for the sake of this argument, I will assume compatibilism.

The basis of my argument will rely in part on John Stuart Mill’s theory of utilitarianism. In Jeremy Bentham and Thomas Hobbs 1789 book, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, the idea of utilitarianism is first established. It is stated that happiness is the presence of “pleasure” and the absence of “pain”. In calculating happiness Bentham uses duration, intensity, certainty vs uncertainty, and nearness vs farness. This is the original basis for Utilitarianism. By this logic, it would be considered moral to sit around and watch television all the time if that’s what brings you pleasure. It would be an immediate, low intensity, high certainty pleasure with a long duration. It could be argued that time could be better spent writing a philosophy essay but this could be an uncomfortably confronting or tiring experience and any pleasure coming out of it would be uncertain and further in the future. Therefore by Bentham’s theory, you would have been making a moral choice in watching television all day. This theory is flawed as it values the quantity of happiness over the quality.

John Stuart Mill disagrees with Bentham, claiming that Bentham disregards qualitative differences, as Bentham did not distinguish the difference between an animal's pain to a humans pain. Mill’s theory alters the idea of utilitarianism and allows the sacrifice of an individual’s pleasure and experience of pain for the greater good of a community. Mills says that because happiness is difficult to attain people are morally justified to attempt and reduce their total amount of pain with their actions.

This theory is still intrinsically flawed because it accounts for pain and pleasure as the only driving forces in decision making. Kant debunks this theory by saying that we can also use reason to influence our decisions which is what differentiates us from animals who only act out of instinct. That being said, pleasure and pain are the underlying reasons for actions when reason is not applied. The main time we do not use reason is when we are thinking subconsciously or when we are not analysing our decisions. This makes Utilitarianism a good theory to approach this problem because it is a simple way to explain human actions and motivations.

Since we have established that it’s time to decide why we choose to spend our time on meaningless distractions. For the sake of this argument, I will define distractions as activities like scrolling mindlessly through social media, watching YouTube videos, watching meaningless television, etc. The obvious answer is because it brings us pleasure but spending all day every day only on distractions would make you unhappy. So, distractions make you happy but only if they are in balance with other meaningful activities.

A long time ago the distractions I have talked about as meaningless did not exist and there were other things humans did to distract themselves like recreational swimming, playing games, etc. These activities were distractions because they were recreational and did not serve any material purpose. Now we don’t have to worry about surviving in the same sense. Instead, we have to contribute to society to survive in this capitalist climate. This new form of survival, however, does not take up as much time and in fact relies heavily on recreational activities to work. As time goes on more and more people are beginning to pass the time through superficial distractions that prevent us from deep reflection or philosophical examination. Plato’s theory of a good life maintains heavily on the idea of examining life. He maintains that a life unexamined is not a life worth living. This argument in many ways is correct. Imagining spending every waking hour indulging in mindless activities that give you mild happiness. That life would no way compare to a life of variety in which you examined the human condition, learnt and then spent time indulging in life’s pleasures as a reward. This again supports the idea of a balanced life in which learning and physical pleasure are held in unison to create a fulfilling life.

The increasing desire to escape reality through distractions can, in part, be explained by changes in the political climate. The end of World War II changed everything, science, once seen as a pure course of discovery, had now been used to create weapons of mass destruction. Everything around you could be gone in an instant. This shocking reality is on the front of everyone’s minds. Some embrace it and lean into new philosophical outlooks, like Heidegger suggests, but the majority of people choose to try and continue on as usual. Heidegger has excellent points on death. Heidegger said that there are certain things that come with contemplating the reality of death, that it can happen to anyone, anywhere at any time. Heidegger says, if you reflect on death every day you will have an authentic attitude towards death. People who put off living life, who act like they will live forever, Heidegger says have an inauthentic view of death. Heidegger believes that death is the only thing that can bring authentic meaning to life and in order to be morally good or live a good life you must accept death and use it to motivate your actions. By Heidegger’s theory anyone that chooses to distract themselves from death using distractions is immoral. Distraction is the easy path when faced with these realities.

Those who had not chosen to fill their time with distractions after World War II are further tempted into it by advertising and the culture surrounding these distractions. Continuously more and more events fuel the idea of distraction in individuals minds. Reports of the holocaust and the idea of genocide became widespread knowledge. The attack on the 11th of September 2001 threatened the world with a new terrorist threat. Even in more recent times, the election of Donald Trump as the President of the United States meant tremendous implications for not only America but the world. Of course, the rising issue of climate change also plays a big role, especially with the new media attention. These realities are all uncomfortable to think about and people need a solution. The easiest solution is distractions. Young people learn everything from our surroundings so we also learn our distraction habits from them. For example, when a mother gets overwhelmed at work and then at the end of the day indulge themselves by playing video games then her children will think of video games as a way to destress. Therefore when the children are stressed they will play video games, furthering the cycle. Because of the increasing levels of stress, people are destressing more and therefor distracting more.

Another factor that can drive distraction is the mental health epidemic. While no one exact cause for the increase in mental health issues is known it is another explanation for the increase in distractions. This is relevant because in every mental health condition, individuals, adapt their own coping mechanisms to deal with stress. These coping mechanisms often follow patterns like, increased television habits, activity on social media, or other activities that help them forget about their stress. This would, in turn, maximise our pleasure and minimise our pain.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Another factor impacting the individuals want for distraction is boredom. Not only a lack of activities to complete but sensory boredom. Video games, TV shows and the like all have sensory stimulation, bright colours flashing are accompanied by loud noises. Products aimed at children hook you in with this sensory stimulation. This early induction into sensory stimulation means that our bodies become used to this level of stimulation and therefore crave it when we are away from it. For example, a blind person that was not born blind often has ticks to stimulate their eyes even though they can’t be visually stimulated. This is very often some form of rubbing of the eyes or other physical stimulation. For someone who is technically blind but can also see shadows they often use lights to stimulate their eyes. This goes the same for when someone is used to hearing loud noises all day long, they will often be unsettled by the quiet as it is unfamiliar. For example, if someone watches television in the morning and the works in a loud classroom when they get home they would likely want to stimulate their hearing by putting on music or watching TV and could be unsettled by the quiet of their house.

Therefore, due to the uncomfortable political climate, external stresses and the accessibility and encouragement for distracting, we use our spare time on meaningless tasks, to maximise pleasure and minimize pain.

The morality of choosing to distract oneself from the “real” issues in the world has been debated by many philosophers. The theory of utilitarianism does not provide a clear answer to this question, instead, saying that whatever maximises happiest at the moment is the moral choice. This can be debunked by the example of sacrificing yourself to save your child. It would bring you pain but it would allow your child to live, which is ultimately what many people would choose. This makes utilitarianism an unfitting theory for this question.

Jean-Paul Satre’s theory of free will applies an individual morality for our decisions. Sartre claims that humans live in suffering because once they are capable of making decisions, they are responsible for those decisions and their consequences. Sartre calls this suffering “existential angst”. This could also offer another explanation as to why we feel the need to distract ourselves.

Furthermore, Sartre defined living in “bad faith” which as when someone does not take responsibility for their choices or does not “pursue freedom”, or free will. A person living in “bad faith” accepts things as they are and does not pursue other options. Therefore Sartre believes that you are not using your full free will unless you are living in “good faith”. Living in “good faith” means that unless you are content and take responsibility for all of your decisions. For example, you could decide to watch one episode of Grey’s Anatomy and be content with your decision. However, you find yourself caught on a cliffhanger, so you watch another episode, this one you can still justify to yourself and take responsibility for. Then you watch another one because you are having a great evening. At the end of the third episode, you are tired and realise it is 12 pm. You use excuses like “time got away from me”. You do not take responsibility for your actions or justify them. This would be living in “bad faith”. If you are living in “Bad faith” you will experience more existential angst and become more stressed causing the urge to distract yourself to increase. Alternatively, after the third episode, you could think about how that ended up being a bad idea and you will now be tired for work tomorrow. You accept this as your fault and think that next time you will stop at one or two episodes. That would be living in “good faith”. In other words, don’t watch television all day if you can't justify that decision to yourself and take responsibility for it.

Sartre’s theory is an excellent way to approach this problem but that does not leave it without fault. Sartre describes living in “good faith” as someone who takes responsibility for all their actions, however, this does not account for certain exceptions. For example, a starving man has no option for sustenance other than a human corpse and he chooses to consume the corpse. The man does not take legal or emotional responsibility for those actions claiming he was acting out of necessity. Would he be living in “bad faith”? Alternatively, a person with Tourette’s Syndrome who yelled “everyone down I have a bomb” at an airport would likely not take responsibility for their actions as they did not have free will over that action. On the other hand, that person could justify this action to themselves and accept it even if not taking responsibility.

This fault, however, can be solved when coupled with compatibilism (the idea that at least some things in life are predetermined). With this idea, you could suggest that the starving man did not make that decision or rather his biology made the decision. Similarly, the man with Tourette’s Syndrome would not have physically been able to stop himself from yelling.

An alternative theory is Kantian ethics. Kant says that we can’t control the consequences of our actions, only our motives. Therefore we are morally responsible for the will behind our actions and not the outcomes. A categorical imperative is universal and should be applied to everyone, with no exceptions. This means that if a serial killer asks you where your friend is you have to tell her, just the same as telling the police where you saw the killer runoff to. Kantian ethics directly oppose the theory of utilitarianism, claiming that we are not solely governed by pleasure and pain but that reason can also shape our actions. Kant says that we can choose to endure pain and forgo pleasure, which is what sets us apart from animals.

Consider this, Norm knows that if he spent his time exercising and being social he would be happier and healthier. But despite this knowledge Norm chooses to sit on the couch after work, eating a pizza and watching TV. He knows it isn’t good for him but he admits that it is what he wants to do, he really likes TV. Kant argues that Norm is not acting in free will. He says freedom is not just being free to get what you want because we do not choose our wants. If Norm could choose his wants he would want to eat healthier and exercise. But what he actually wants is to eat pizza and watch TV. There is a force outside Norm’s will that he is obeying. Kant says that true freedom is the ability to resist our wants. We are free when we act in accordance with laws we give ourselves. So if Norm was to throw out his TV and start exercising he would be truly free. In the context of distractions, you could have a personal law that means you find it immoral to watch TV all day, meaning this distraction would be immoral to you. However, watching a certain amount of TV could be moral. But if you find it immoral to watch TV at all, then you would be morally wrong to ever watch TV because it would be a categorical imperative.

Throughout this essay, I have shown that humans crave distractions to avoid thinking about distressing things and to obtain pleasure. This idea comes from John Stuart Mill’s theory of utilitarianism and of human’s desire to avoid pain (the distressing thoughts) and to acquire pleasure (the distractions). Because humans possess freewill they must take responsibility for their decisions, according to Satre. This is the most compelling theory I have examined in accordance with the morality of distraction as it allows for a situation to situation basis. This means that someone would be able to morally justify using distractions in balance with productive and creative activities as long as they thought it was justifiable and took responsibility for it. It also provides a solution for people using distractions as coping mechanisms or stress relievers. Based on my research I conclude that distractions are moral as long as the person distracting themselves is content with the time they spend on distractions and accept responsibility for their actions.