Natural Predispositions

If someone says that he has a natural predisposition towards some behaviour (say, alcoholism, or stealing, or whatever), he will probably use that as an explanation to excuse that behaviour.

Now, we all have natural predispositions. Some predispositions lead to good and healthy behaviours, and others lead to not so good and unhealthy behaviours. I, for example, have a natural predisposition towards uttering dumb, inappropriate remarks in serious situations (hopefully this isn’t one of them), or telling a fib to get out of a tight spot. But does that make the action right? What if someone has a predisposition towards pedophilia or child abuse or pyromania? Shall we excuse him from his behaviour based on natural predispositions?

Each person has natural predispositions. But this issue is separate from the issue of whether the actions that result from these predispositions are right. And here we ought to look at each behaviour on a case by case basis to see whether it is healthy or unhealthy.

Let’s say someone does an altruistic act (eg. Giving to charity, volunteering with troubled youth, opening their home to disaster victims, etc.). We commend that person for doing a good deed. Is that commendation any less valid if we knew that the person had less of a natural predisposition to doing good deeds than someone else? We recognize the good deed irrespective of the natural disposition of the person in question. So, don’t let anyone try to justify a bad behaviour by appealing to a natural predisposition. As they say about blood stains, that just won’t wash. (or maybe grass stain – blood makes some people faint).