I am left with slightly conflicting thoughts because of my work with deservedness. I wonder if two very different principles are at play? One: debt obligation, like when we say thank you specifically for some specific activity. Two: gratitude as appreciation for what was not given explicitly. Like appreciation for a sunset, or a kindness that never had intention of being recognized as a special treatment.
Because of my work in deservedness, i see things so differently than before. If gratitude is an obligation because of some trait or action that justifies suspending the normal ethical consideration, then something different is taking place than gratitude that one feels for acts of real kindness. It is the difference between real giving (no reciprocity sought) rather than transactional activity that leaves a debt in its wake.
I think I see what you're getting at--an act that specifically calls for gratitude might incur a "debt" that an act of free giving (which is how I'm reading your use of "kindness", yes?)-- which could result in gratitude or gratitude-like feelings--doesn't call for. I'm not sure what connection you're intending to deservedness, so sorry if I'm missing something.
Still, I think that gratitude-like attitudes tend to motivate reciprocity, even if no real debt is incurred or there is no obligation. Some accounts of gratitude do seem to frame it as an obligation, but others seem to suggest that we never *owe* gratitude. It seems tricky. I feel like you ought (in some sense of "ought", maybe a loose one like just its being fitting rather than a tight one of obligation) to be grateful for gifts, or benefits that weren't necessarily intended for you (like Valeriy suggested in his other comment), but does that mean someone can demand/expect it of us? That seems less clear to me.
As far as deservedness i have come to approach this word differently than i did before. For instance, i think you are saying there are some acts of giving that ought to illicit a sense of gratitude. This is different than what happens with desert (deservedness). In the same situation one might say the person giving deserves gratitude from the one who did not ask for the kindness. It is a distinctly different process. Ought and deserve do very different things that get overlooked.
Really there is much much more. I would love to have someone to dialogue more with about deservingness, as i am a self taught philosopher of critical thought and sometimes am floundering on this vast shore.
Do you think the distinction might be worth pursuing?
Actually, I do. I don't know now where it will go, but it's a really interesting puzzle how it seems to make sense to say both that someone deserves something but that there's no specific person who owes it to them, and similarly, that you "ought" to be grateful but aren't really required to in a strict sense. And I do think philosophy is a dialogical activity, so I definitely understand the urge to talk with someone else. If you like, you could message me about your ideas. I can't promise how much time I can devote to a dialogue, but I'm happy to try.
"Can I be grateful for the tulips, then?" I think so! You could be grateful to everyone who made it possible for you to enjoy them at this particular moment. For instance, to your grandparents who took time to raise your parents, who in turn raised you; your family and work who "cooperated" to make it possible for you to go on a book writing retreat and to notice these tulips; to the gardener who planted and took care of them to blossom; to the society in general that makes it possible for someone to make a living by taking care of flowers that provide esthetic experience to very few people who actually care to notice and smell them etc etc.
Yes, absolutely! I can be grateful for all those things (and I am, when I think about it). But is that the same thing as being grateful *for the tulips*? That's what I was wondering about. The thought seems different to me. Like, yes, all of those people are connected to those tulips, but when I'm standing in front of them and feeling "grateful" or appreciative of them, I think the thought is about the tulips themselves, and not really all of those other things (though the thought about the tulips can lead in all those directions).
I see what you are saying. In that case, perhaps, this feeling of what you call "gratitude" is something that we instinctively experience towards whatever is the direct source of our pleasure? Maybe we just can't help it but experience gratitude in these cases? Since it is a plant, just by being itself, that was able to give you pleasure, it feels somewhat unnatural to be "grateful" to the plant or to the nature that produced it. But if you think about nature as God (like Spinoza did), then it makes total sense to feel grateful for the tulips since it was the God's gift to you.
Is there a difference because of the intent of the ‘giver’? If nature gives there is no inherent part of the giving that asks for reciprocity. Yet with the giving that expects a ‘thank you’ there is an implied debt obligation. Is this a relatively reasonable way to express what it is you two seem to be converging on? I would be curious if there is something deeper that i might be missing or if there is something more meaningful that might be in the intersections of all of our explanations of gratitude?
Yes but I am also trying to point out some possible exceptions when the giver did have an intent to give necessarily and reciprocity is not expected but gratitude is still felt because of the pleasure experienced thanks to the "gift". For instance, let's say I had a neighbor who completely ran down his house and his yard, there are rats in his back yard that keep getting into my yard and my house, weeds and garbage everywhere etc. My neighbor fortunately sells his property to someone else who knocks the house down, cleans up the yard and builds a beautiful house with a garden that is a pleasure to look at. My new neighbor did not intend any of it to be for my pleasure, but I can't help by feel grateful to him! I think something similar applies to Erica's tulips
Ooh, yes, that's a helpful complicating example. It doesn't assimilate to either what I was thinking of as gratitude-proper and the gratitude-adjacent attitude that doesn't have a particular person/entity to thank. Maybe this just means that being an intended beneficiary isn't part of the conditions that make gratitude called for. Because we can certainly be benefitted unintentionally. Is this a third kind of gratitude, or is it a case of the second kind?
Wow, it gets even more complicated. With the case of tulips, depending on how religious one is, we could classify it even as gratitude proper as God created this world for all of us to enjoy and it is not God's fault most people are too busy to notice all this beauty surrounding them (assuming we disregard all the people that made your tulip appreciating experience happen). If one were to take God out of the picture, then it is gratitude adjacent.
In the case of the messy neighbor replaced by the tidy one, there is clearly someone to be grateful to for the pleasure experienced but the tidy neighbor did not have the intent to please anyone but him/herself. A religious person might still feel thankful to God for sending the tidy neighbor his/her way. Someone who is not religious would feel instinctive gratitude towards the tidy neighbor and it would be different from gratitude adjacent sort of feeling since there is clearly someone to thank. But, at the same time, a religious person, in addition to feeling grateful towards God, will also feel instinctively grateful towards the tidy neighbor even though he/she would be felt to be, at least partly, a tool in God's hands. Then it comes down to the question of free will and if the tidy neighbor had any say in doing what he/she did with the house and the yard. Oh boy...
I guess there is probably a third kind of instinctive gratitude when someone benefits from someone else's action even though there was no specific intent to please but it depends on one's view on free will. Most people would feel grateful in this case as people mostly believe in free will (or behave as if they do even though they profess not to believe).
I think it's more complicated--richer--than just pleasure, because otherwise we wouldn't be thinking in terms of gratitude. And I agree that most of the time, we can't help it. I'm just not sure it makes a lot of sense to call it a gift, even from nature or God, because the tulips don't exist *for me*. Still, the feeling is very like gratitude in "classic" situations, and psychologically it makes a lot of sense to direct that feeling toward some entity--nature or God--because most of our experiences of gratitude have someone to whom to be grateful.
Erica! You've said this so much more eloquently than my fumbling discussion on the same topic. https://ingridwagnerwalsh.substack.com/p/the-cult-of-gratitude. But I completely agree with you on the two types of gratitude and the strangeness of the indebtedness requirement. It feels disingenuous and contrived. Great read! Thanks.
Yay! I'm glad you enjoyed it. I'm also ambivalent about the way gratitude is diluted and devalued through marketing and shallow decor, because it IS such a good practice if we can manage to appreciate what's right in front of us.
Fantastic! Have you ever read about the Social Exchange Theory? That's what came to mind as you were talking about the indebtedness that can go along with gratitude. Beautiful and thoughtful--thank you!
I agree. It's like using money metaphors for time, but I do think it describes how many people are operating in interactions, whether they are aware of it or not. It's what some get taught to do ("Never return an empty pan").
Yes, and I can see the general idea operating--I've certainly thought in terms of "why keep a friendship going when you're putting in much more than you get out". And I actually feel uncomfortable with gifts sometimes because then I feel obligated to reciprocate, but have to remember to do it some time later, etc. So I get it. But I'd rather talk in terms of reciprocity and sharing. It's much more relational. Friends and the goods of friendship are not commodities. (I know I'm preaching to the choir!)
I haven't! But I'll look it up. Actually, too, just last night I started reading my dissertation advisor's latest book, which takes a new direction from previous work of his and looks at "attitudes of the heart" (rather than the head), and he discusses love and related "attitudes" as what he calls "second-personal"--at their core, they're related to interpersonal exchange. I haven't seen anything about gratitude specifically yet, but he might include it.
It's definitely philosophy that might take some background to get, since he's making lots of references to his earlier work. But when I get back from the writing retreat I can scan the intro--and probably the preface, because it's touching--and see if you want to read the whole thing. The intro chapter has an overview of each chapter.
I am left with slightly conflicting thoughts because of my work with deservedness. I wonder if two very different principles are at play? One: debt obligation, like when we say thank you specifically for some specific activity. Two: gratitude as appreciation for what was not given explicitly. Like appreciation for a sunset, or a kindness that never had intention of being recognized as a special treatment.
Because of my work in deservedness, i see things so differently than before. If gratitude is an obligation because of some trait or action that justifies suspending the normal ethical consideration, then something different is taking place than gratitude that one feels for acts of real kindness. It is the difference between real giving (no reciprocity sought) rather than transactional activity that leaves a debt in its wake.
What do you think?
I think I see what you're getting at--an act that specifically calls for gratitude might incur a "debt" that an act of free giving (which is how I'm reading your use of "kindness", yes?)-- which could result in gratitude or gratitude-like feelings--doesn't call for. I'm not sure what connection you're intending to deservedness, so sorry if I'm missing something.
Still, I think that gratitude-like attitudes tend to motivate reciprocity, even if no real debt is incurred or there is no obligation. Some accounts of gratitude do seem to frame it as an obligation, but others seem to suggest that we never *owe* gratitude. It seems tricky. I feel like you ought (in some sense of "ought", maybe a loose one like just its being fitting rather than a tight one of obligation) to be grateful for gifts, or benefits that weren't necessarily intended for you (like Valeriy suggested in his other comment), but does that mean someone can demand/expect it of us? That seems less clear to me.
As far as deservedness i have come to approach this word differently than i did before. For instance, i think you are saying there are some acts of giving that ought to illicit a sense of gratitude. This is different than what happens with desert (deservedness). In the same situation one might say the person giving deserves gratitude from the one who did not ask for the kindness. It is a distinctly different process. Ought and deserve do very different things that get overlooked.
Really there is much much more. I would love to have someone to dialogue more with about deservingness, as i am a self taught philosopher of critical thought and sometimes am floundering on this vast shore.
Do you think the distinction might be worth pursuing?
Actually, I do. I don't know now where it will go, but it's a really interesting puzzle how it seems to make sense to say both that someone deserves something but that there's no specific person who owes it to them, and similarly, that you "ought" to be grateful but aren't really required to in a strict sense. And I do think philosophy is a dialogical activity, so I definitely understand the urge to talk with someone else. If you like, you could message me about your ideas. I can't promise how much time I can devote to a dialogue, but I'm happy to try.
"Can I be grateful for the tulips, then?" I think so! You could be grateful to everyone who made it possible for you to enjoy them at this particular moment. For instance, to your grandparents who took time to raise your parents, who in turn raised you; your family and work who "cooperated" to make it possible for you to go on a book writing retreat and to notice these tulips; to the gardener who planted and took care of them to blossom; to the society in general that makes it possible for someone to make a living by taking care of flowers that provide esthetic experience to very few people who actually care to notice and smell them etc etc.
Yes, absolutely! I can be grateful for all those things (and I am, when I think about it). But is that the same thing as being grateful *for the tulips*? That's what I was wondering about. The thought seems different to me. Like, yes, all of those people are connected to those tulips, but when I'm standing in front of them and feeling "grateful" or appreciative of them, I think the thought is about the tulips themselves, and not really all of those other things (though the thought about the tulips can lead in all those directions).
I see what you are saying. In that case, perhaps, this feeling of what you call "gratitude" is something that we instinctively experience towards whatever is the direct source of our pleasure? Maybe we just can't help it but experience gratitude in these cases? Since it is a plant, just by being itself, that was able to give you pleasure, it feels somewhat unnatural to be "grateful" to the plant or to the nature that produced it. But if you think about nature as God (like Spinoza did), then it makes total sense to feel grateful for the tulips since it was the God's gift to you.
Is there a difference because of the intent of the ‘giver’? If nature gives there is no inherent part of the giving that asks for reciprocity. Yet with the giving that expects a ‘thank you’ there is an implied debt obligation. Is this a relatively reasonable way to express what it is you two seem to be converging on? I would be curious if there is something deeper that i might be missing or if there is something more meaningful that might be in the intersections of all of our explanations of gratitude?
Yes but I am also trying to point out some possible exceptions when the giver did have an intent to give necessarily and reciprocity is not expected but gratitude is still felt because of the pleasure experienced thanks to the "gift". For instance, let's say I had a neighbor who completely ran down his house and his yard, there are rats in his back yard that keep getting into my yard and my house, weeds and garbage everywhere etc. My neighbor fortunately sells his property to someone else who knocks the house down, cleans up the yard and builds a beautiful house with a garden that is a pleasure to look at. My new neighbor did not intend any of it to be for my pleasure, but I can't help by feel grateful to him! I think something similar applies to Erica's tulips
Ooh, yes, that's a helpful complicating example. It doesn't assimilate to either what I was thinking of as gratitude-proper and the gratitude-adjacent attitude that doesn't have a particular person/entity to thank. Maybe this just means that being an intended beneficiary isn't part of the conditions that make gratitude called for. Because we can certainly be benefitted unintentionally. Is this a third kind of gratitude, or is it a case of the second kind?
Wow, it gets even more complicated. With the case of tulips, depending on how religious one is, we could classify it even as gratitude proper as God created this world for all of us to enjoy and it is not God's fault most people are too busy to notice all this beauty surrounding them (assuming we disregard all the people that made your tulip appreciating experience happen). If one were to take God out of the picture, then it is gratitude adjacent.
In the case of the messy neighbor replaced by the tidy one, there is clearly someone to be grateful to for the pleasure experienced but the tidy neighbor did not have the intent to please anyone but him/herself. A religious person might still feel thankful to God for sending the tidy neighbor his/her way. Someone who is not religious would feel instinctive gratitude towards the tidy neighbor and it would be different from gratitude adjacent sort of feeling since there is clearly someone to thank. But, at the same time, a religious person, in addition to feeling grateful towards God, will also feel instinctively grateful towards the tidy neighbor even though he/she would be felt to be, at least partly, a tool in God's hands. Then it comes down to the question of free will and if the tidy neighbor had any say in doing what he/she did with the house and the yard. Oh boy...
I guess there is probably a third kind of instinctive gratitude when someone benefits from someone else's action even though there was no specific intent to please but it depends on one's view on free will. Most people would feel grateful in this case as people mostly believe in free will (or behave as if they do even though they profess not to believe).
I think it's more complicated--richer--than just pleasure, because otherwise we wouldn't be thinking in terms of gratitude. And I agree that most of the time, we can't help it. I'm just not sure it makes a lot of sense to call it a gift, even from nature or God, because the tulips don't exist *for me*. Still, the feeling is very like gratitude in "classic" situations, and psychologically it makes a lot of sense to direct that feeling toward some entity--nature or God--because most of our experiences of gratitude have someone to whom to be grateful.
Erica! You've said this so much more eloquently than my fumbling discussion on the same topic. https://ingridwagnerwalsh.substack.com/p/the-cult-of-gratitude. But I completely agree with you on the two types of gratitude and the strangeness of the indebtedness requirement. It feels disingenuous and contrived. Great read! Thanks.
Yay! I'm glad you enjoyed it. I'm also ambivalent about the way gratitude is diluted and devalued through marketing and shallow decor, because it IS such a good practice if we can manage to appreciate what's right in front of us.
Fantastic! Have you ever read about the Social Exchange Theory? That's what came to mind as you were talking about the indebtedness that can go along with gratitude. Beautiful and thoughtful--thank you!
I finally looked up social exchange theory. I guess the basic idea makes sense, but I find the use of economic terminology really repugnant.
I agree. It's like using money metaphors for time, but I do think it describes how many people are operating in interactions, whether they are aware of it or not. It's what some get taught to do ("Never return an empty pan").
Yes, and I can see the general idea operating--I've certainly thought in terms of "why keep a friendship going when you're putting in much more than you get out". And I actually feel uncomfortable with gifts sometimes because then I feel obligated to reciprocate, but have to remember to do it some time later, etc. So I get it. But I'd rather talk in terms of reciprocity and sharing. It's much more relational. Friends and the goods of friendship are not commodities. (I know I'm preaching to the choir!)
I haven't! But I'll look it up. Actually, too, just last night I started reading my dissertation advisor's latest book, which takes a new direction from previous work of his and looks at "attitudes of the heart" (rather than the head), and he discusses love and related "attitudes" as what he calls "second-personal"--at their core, they're related to interpersonal exchange. I haven't seen anything about gratitude specifically yet, but he might include it.
You'll have to keep me posted. This sounds like it could be something good for me to read as I prep my Interpersonal Communication class.
It's definitely philosophy that might take some background to get, since he's making lots of references to his earlier work. But when I get back from the writing retreat I can scan the intro--and probably the preface, because it's touching--and see if you want to read the whole thing. The intro chapter has an overview of each chapter.