To Choose

[jackofallgeeks]

As is widely known, I believe in certain truths. One of the most common objections to a number of my arguments is "I believe it's their choice," a phrase which is said in such a way as though this should simply end discussion, because it's quite evident that believing is choice is the end-all of the argument.

Of course it's their choice - it's always their choice. Nothing you tell them, nothing they believe, nothing will ever make it NOT their choice. Belief does not take free will away, it gives it ground to stand on. I should think it's self-evident, but it's even a choice for me when these issues enter my life. It's odd in that society seems to present a choice of "no" as no choice at all.

All that being said, even if you agree in choice, you must have some opinion of the rightness or wrongness of a thing. Example - I should say the great majority of us here think taking drugs, as such, is wrong. However, it is still a choice - the choice between doing what we know is right, or that which is wrong. It is also a choice for each of us to eat or not - but as we all agree that eating is, generally, a good thing, it's not called into question.

It seems to me an absurd argument that "It's their choice." I have no gripes with differening opinions - if not for such opinions, we would never learn anything. But I should hope people are more educated in what they believe to have some argument as to why one's choice should be 'yes' as opposed to 'no,' or at the very least why 'yes' is equally acceptable to 'no.'

Disclaimer: Before anyone gets up in arms about this, the truth is that, yes, I have had discissions with a number of you recently where "it's their choice" came up. As such, that is what got me thinking on the subject that, regardless of anything else, it's ALWAYS your choice. I do not mean to attack anyone personally, but rather demonstarte the absurdity of such an argument. I can still respect a well-argued, if desenting, opinion.

Comments

[surichan.livejournal.com]

I certainly like to let people live their lives according to their own choices, because I would like to be allowed to life life according to mine. It doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with their choices, but I will respect their right to make really dumbshit decisions. For instance, I find abortion to be an absolutely abhorrent concept...the very thought of it brings me close to tears. Unfortunately, however, people will do what they will. All I can do is state my individual belief and allow them to state theirs...perhaps talk with them to better understand their motives and perhaps work at changing their minds, bit by bit.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I think Voltaire said something to that effect, and it's the same with choices people make, at least for me.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

::Nods:: I agree with you and Voltaire, everyone is free to say what they want, I will give you that.

However, no one is 'free' to do just as they want. No one is free to kill another human being - that's murder¹. Murder is wrong, we all know it's wrong, and we take great pains to ensure no one makes such an bad choice - or at the least, if they do, they are punished for it.
As such, it should be our goal to ensure consequences for all such 'bad' choices. I will allow that, to determine what is ands is not a bad choice, we must discuss to allow for individual error in thought. However, the point of my original post was that 'it's their choice' is not a valid reason due to the fact that we always have the choice - some choices are just wrong ones. Another subtle complaint I had was the way that society seems to present a choice of 'no' as no choice at all - that is to say, if I say 'no' to contraception, I haven't exercised my choice, I've denied a choice². To exercise your choice, you must choose 'yes.'

¹

[surichan.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes...certainly, people should not be allowed to do certain things. The problem is that legislating morality isn't something people can do, because people will always legislate toward their own moral leanings...thus, one can never really have a fair legislation of morality. There will always be people who believe that the death penalty for heinous crimes is the only way to rid the world of evildoers. There will always be people on the flipside who believe that killing people, even murderers, is just perpetuating murder. I'm not sure we can ever have a society based on morals, because nobody can seem to agree with each other on what exactly those morals should be.

...but when I'M Queen of the World, by God... ^_-

And I guess by definition, the abortionist's "pro-choice" name refers to a woman's "choice" wether or not to have the child. Which I still think is disgusting and wrong, but... ::sigh:: There are certainly people in the world who would see things that I am doing as disgusting and wrong, too.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Oh no, I'll be the first one to say that not only can we not legislate morality, but we shouldn't. You can't MAKE people do things, and I just generally can't stand large government messing around with my life, anyways.
However, I disagree on the fact that we can never agree on morality, which is why I have debates such as this - to get people thinking about what they believe and why, and maybe to take a deeper looking into things¹.

As far as Pro-Choice goes, I think you're wrong. I believe women have a choice wether or not to have a child. I don't believe I would ever force a woman to have a baby - that's just unreasonable. However, that choice is decided when the girl gets into bed. After that, her 'choice' to have a child is vetoed, if you will, by the child's right to live. Take a look at how our society is set up, and you'll see that one person's rights end when theyconflict with someone else's rights, and the higher right (in this case, the right to live) always takes precedence.

¹Not that I have any delusions that I have the power to change anyone's mind, or really that I'm absolutely correct. I do believe I'm right - I can't see how I could function if I didn't - but by the same token I like to believe I'm open to debate, in which case if I can be proven wrong, I'm better off for it in the end, if you follow. As till now, however, that demonstration has not come about.

Addendum

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

On a similar note as to your comment about others seeing things you do as disgusting...

There are actually, and generally, three ways to look at a given action/situation. There are actions that are Morally Good, Morally Bad, and Morally Indiferent. A good action is 'always' good, just as a 'bad' action is always bad. An indiferent action, obviously, can fall either way. To some extend (though Good and Bad actions less so than Indifferent) the situation effects the morality of a given situation - the difference between murder and a just killing, for example.

People will have general opinions on these Indiferent actions, as I believe is part of the nature of man. Due to personal experience, one may see a given Indiferent action as more or less Good, however, opinion on an action doesn't change the inherent morality of a think. in this sense, if someone thought vegitarianism was 'Bad,' through some given experience of his, that woiuld not nessesitate a moral obligation on anyone, so long as the given vegitarian is taking measures to keep their body healthy (due to the fact that we're morally obligated to care for ourselves, of course).