UI 057: Free Choice and the Consequences of Stage One Thinking...

Sometimes I am stunned by peoples behaviors.  Do they think about what they are doing?  Do they think before, during, or after they choose to act a certain way?  Do they really think about the results and aftermath of their choices? Do I?

Seriously, it is fascinating to think about myself and others in regards to how we choose to behave.  I know I am presupposing we have a choice.  Others believe people are simply "hardwired" to act certain ways.  Maybe their neurotransmitters and hormones direct their actions... or direct their decision making - so ultimately people have no free will.  Rather, they just do.  Like animals driven by instinct and desire to live, so too with people.

I know I have talked about whether or not we have free will (Check out UI 20), but I suppose there is a subtle distinction between having free will and the freedom to choose.  For instance, a person may have the free will to walk this way or that, but he doesn't have the freedom to fly like Superman.  Our free will is bound by the choices available or perceived.

On the other hand, if someone is given 1,327 choices of deodorant, they will likely limit themselves to 2-3 options because that is what they are willing to deal with.  We have all had times where our decision making abilities have been stymied by too many choices, and studies may show the similar findings. (ref: http://www.scheibehenne.de/ScheibehenneGreifenederTodd2010.pdf)

So lets just say for the sake of argument that in general people have the freedom to choose (as the counter arguments ramifications create a scenario where it would be unjust to hold people accountable for their actions.)  Why do people choose they way they do?

In the last few decades experts in psychology and philosophy have been exploring and experimenting with that very question.  Theologians and ancient philosopher's (i.e. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc.) were trying to explain this thousands of years ago.  So, "why do people choose what they choose?" is not a pointless question, rather it is an ultimate issue.

It is an ultimate issues both in the macro and micro realms.  On the macro scale there are social contracts, taboos, and legalities which hinge on choices.  For instance, why is it illegal to go 40 mph in a 35 mph limited zone?  If it is 4am and no one is about and the streets are empty, and I am driving a vehicle with far more advanced safety mechanisms and maneuvering capabilities than when the 35 mph limit was enacted (let's say in back in the 1960's for my neighborhood)... why is it still illegal?  The powers that were presumably arbitrarily chose that number years ago, and the current powers that be have chosen not to change it.  But perhaps you will answer pragmatically (e.g. "statistics show...").  So what about a societal taboo like incest.  Why has one society or one generation decided it was fine and the same society of a later generation say it is revolting?  If you say religion, then I'll ask why secular atheists also believe incest is wrong?  If you again give a pragmatic answer like, deformity or retardation in offspring of such relationships, then I'll ask "so is it okay if one or both are sterile and absolutely incapable of producing biological offspring?"  Again, society had made a choice at some point to label that behavior as wrong, and most modern western people still abide by that choice regardless of their religion or lack of.  Why?

Do they simply not question it?  Or perhaps is it because of confirmational bias?  Once we have chosen to see something a certain way, we will seek out confirming opinions to back up our own.  And as far as conflicting opinions, people will dismiss, mock, or demonize.

And here is why I am asking all this.  It pertains to an article I heard about from Dennis Prager (an opinionated man who once was a challenge to many of my opinions, and now is admittedly a beloved source of confirmation.)  The story is about how back in 2010 a woman was driving down a Montreal highway, saw some ducklings, stopped her car, parked her car in the left lane, and proceeded to try help these helpless, motherless ducklings.  Cute story right? She made micro choice to show kindness to cute ducklings.  One problem though.

A motorcyclist also traveling down the highway slammed into the parked car killing both the rider,Andre Roy, 50, and his daughter, Jessie, 16.  Here is the report I played on the Podcast:

From CBC News:

 

And here is the article with more details also from CBC News:

Quebec motorist accused in two deaths said she was helping ducks

So what I find so fascinating is both how the woman who killed the father and daughter chose to behave and rationalize it, how the surviving wife/mother has chosen to behave and rationalize it, and how people who have commented on the story have chosen to opine about it.

This story makes a strong case for what I say more or less in the beginning of every podcast, "We have to think about the ultimate issues." People need to think about these issues and scenarios and understand how best to behave in the world.  I think that if you earnestly deal with complicated and difficult dilemmas before they actually occur you will be better equipped to deal with it.

Why did Emma Czornobaj chose to stop her car on a highway for ducks?  Was she weighing the risks to herself and others for the sake of ducks?  Does she believe, as some do, that there is no difference between the value of human life and animal life?  What exactly was she hoping to accomplish for herself in the best case scenario? Perhaps, she would feel good about herself and brag on Facebook with some pictures of the ducklings she daringly rescued.  I don't know... and I don't know if she knows any of the answers to these questions.  But regardless, she voluntarily decided to do what she did on that Montreal highway.

As the story reads, many people seemed concerned about her intent.  But if malicious intent only means deliberate intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another, and/or it is simply the intent to harm or do some evil purpose.  Then we have a huge dilemma for all those people who do not seem to think through their decisions before they act.

I would argue her intent was only as good as her decision (or ability) to think about the outcomes of her actions.  This goes for all of us by the way.  Do we decide to think beyond Stage One? Or do we chose to stop thinking once we have confirmed our beneficent intent (as Thomas Sowell call it "Stage One Thinking"?

Again, the words we use hold weight and are heavy with meaning.  So when someone says "it was an accident", did they mean it was "an unavoidable and unforeseen consequence"? Or did they mean simply "It was an act of negligence. Had I though through my actions it may have been foreseen and avoidable."

I would argue the Czornobaj case was at least an act of negligence.  And though I don't think the laws has this term yet I submit it for those who can influence our justice system... The Czornobaj guilty of passive malicious intent (malicious intent due preoccupation with the self alone.)  True she was not deliberately trying to harm someone, but it would also seem as though she was not thinking at all about anything else but herself and how rescuing those ducklings would make her feel.  Because she decided to focus solely on herself, and therefore chose to pay no attention to the welfare of other human beings on the highway she is guilty of passive malicious intent.  In general, when people focus only on themselves they engage in behavior that benefits them even though it may cause harm to others (though it may not be their intention to harm others.)

Let me give another example on how this choice to think and behave works out in the macro.  WAR.

There is a current zeitgeist that is staggeringly naive.  Many people simply believe "war is not the answer."  Often I'll hear people say that unless we are attacked directly we should not have any military engagement in any foreign affairs.  They say it costs too many American soldier lives.  They say it costs too much money.  They say it causes other nations to hate us.  Rather, we should only use our military to protect us if/when we are invaded.

Okay, so I understand stage one... Only use military force when there is an obvious domestic threat, that way we minimize costs and perhaps America will be held in higher esteem by others.  Right?  So lets go beyond stage one.  Stage two is a world whose many varied governments and sovereign nations are inevitably attacked by totalitarianism and dominant forces who don't wish to liberate but rather annihilate or enslave other nations (If you see how history proves otherwise, I sincerely would like to no where and when in human history freedom and peace reigned uncontested.)  At what point in some further stage, would the stage one thinker begin to understand they are not able to defend themselves anymore?  At what point will the well intentioned stage one thinker, realize that in their effort to save thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of American soldiers lives, they have done so at the expense of millions if not hundreds of millions of non-combatant civilian lives through the world and eventually the U.S. as well.

Again, I see this as passive malicious intent. They are only thinking of themselves, at the expense of the welfare of others. While they had the opportunity to act in such a way that all could benefit, they chose to act in such a way that necessarily put others in harms way.

For instance, I had virtually no opinion about whether or not we should have begun engagement in the recent conflict in Iraq, but once we did engage we needed to commit to fighting until we won and remain a strong presence to maintain civil conditions and stability in the region.  However others disagreed, and felt that the best thing we can do is "send our troops home."  So after it looked like we were winning - we surrendered, and came home.  Now Iraq is, as anyone who thinks beyond stage one already assumed, a worse disaster than before. Iraqis who aided the US are targeted, tortured, and murdered.  Now Iraq as a country and it's people are in a predictable crisis.

Perhaps proving confirmation bias... this is from Krauthammer's Washington Post article on Iraq and Syria:

The result was predictable. And predicted. Overnight, Iran and its promotion of Shiite supremacy became the dominant influence in Iraq. The day after the U.S. departure, Maliki ordered the arrest of the Sunni vice president. He cut off funding for the Sons of Iraq, the Sunnis who had fought with us against al-Qaeda. And subsequently so persecuted and alienated Sunnis that they were ready to welcome back al-Qaeda in Iraq — rebranded in its Syrian refuge as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria — as the lesser of two evils. Hence the stunningly swift ISIS capture of Mosul, Tikrit and so much of Sunni Iraq.

I am not sure what really motivates the powers that be, but it seems clear that based on the information know they come up with decision on how to act which are antithetical to many others like myself.  Are they choosing freely or are they not?  Did the woman who attempted to rescue ducks choose freely to do so?  Do these actions in both the macro and micro bear the responsibility for not foreseeing what would have only required another step in the thought process?

So what is the ultimate answer to these ultimate questions?  Do any of us really have free choice?  I'd argue yes, and ironically it is based on how we deep and clear we decide to think.  By think, I mean question.  What we think about, and what we focus on, are up to us.  The  gap between an emotional trigger and our actions are up to us.  Depth, clarity, and deliberation are acquired as inherent characteristics of each individual's mind, and can be influenced for better or worse by their actions and experiences throughout life.  This all argues for why we should be so careful with what we feed our minds, and how on guard we should be regarding our neuro associations.

Ultimately the meanings we associate with things or ideas are highly determinative of how we will decide.  Change the meaning, and you may change your decision.  Think beyond the first stage's well intentioned meaning and you may find yourself at on the opposite side of your first choice.  Perhaps simply thinking through "war is not the answer" will lead one to conclude in the inevitable results of tremendous war and horrific devastation.  Perhaps acting with the intent to help (because it will make you feel good), will actually not do good and ultimately bring harm to others.

Whenever possible we must develop and refine our abilities to reason, empathize, lengthen the fuse of our emotional triggers, and challenge our current mindset to develop our character as well as become more morally demanding of our own behavior.  For me Torah study, reading diverse opinions, debating with a variety of people, and writing help me tremendously. And I hope in discussing these issues with you, you find benefit as well.

In the final analysis, choice in and of itself is just a tool, it's neutral.  How a tool is used determines it's beneficence or maleficence.  Like a hammer, choice can be used to build or destroy - it is up to the operator.  How you and your ego, emotions, reason, and intuition handle this powerful tool is the determining factor of whether or not it is a blessing or a curse.  I think people have extraordinary potential to choose wisely and do tremendous good.  But unfortunately, this must cultivated in most folks (including myself).  Thankfully there are many people who can help us discover our

If you are interested in learning more about why we choose what we choose you may also enjoy reading: