What If, What would

By GrahamLewis · Dec 9, 2019 · ·
  1. As I mentioned in the "That Moment" thread, I've reached a point of existential crisis or perhaps opportunity, the realization that we not only have a lot of choices to make, we in fact are condemned to make choices, because we have no other options. In my life, to this point, I have made choices, right or wrong, good or bad, effective or wasteful, always in the shadow of the idea there is a "right" way to act.

    But I no longer think that's the case. One can live according to religious tenets, but that means one makes the choice to follow that religion, on the unverifiable assumption that there is some truth to that religion.

    I spent a bit of time two years back in Vienna Austria and saw a monument to Jewish survivors of the Holocaust -- it is a statute of a bearded old man down on his hands and knees with a scrub brush in his hand. Old Jewish men were condemned to spend days outside scrubbing the tiles of the town square, being harrassed and heckled by the passing crowd. The tour guide said it had taken years to get the city to acknowledge what had happened during those times, noting that the prevailing sentiment was, "What else could we have done but cooperate with the Nazis? We were powerless to resist them."

    No doubt whatsoever that the choice to refuse to cooperate with the Nazis would have been a perilous choice, albeit one that a few people did make. The others, by not acting, chose to not act or even chose to cooperate. Everyone chose, and I, not a Jew, have serious qualms about what I would have done. There may be, there are, general and theoretical guidelines that make the choice "obvious" in theory -- but when it came down to the nitty-gritty consequences of incurring State wrath and punishments, and consequences to one's family, the choice became far harder. I condemn no one.

    That's the most drastic situation, obviously. What about simpler things, like finding bundle of cash on the street -- turn it in or pocket it? Working for a company that dumps dirty water into the nearby stream. Filing income taxes with an opportunity to claim a shady deduction -- or refusing even to look at shady deductions, Taking the time to listen to your lonely elderly neighbor tell you the same story over and over. Driving around a crowded parking lot late to a court appearance, and seeing an unoccupied disabled parking spot when you are not disabled.

    Again and ultimately, it seems we are back to the choice of choosing. Endorse something unverifiable and try to absolve oneself of options, sorry still a choice. Settle a divorce by agreeing to terms provided under state law, but obviously unfair to the spouse -- still choosing to make the better choice for yourself under the aegis of man's law; or give up terms so that your spouse is treated morally better, still a choice, that may make you feel better, but has no ultimate reward, unless you follow some aforementioned religion or pattern of thought.

    And it's not really a "what if" question, because it's more of a "when" question, as long as we are alive we choose.
    love to read, Madman and J.D. Ray like this.

Comments

  1. GrahamLewis
    A couple addenda. First, there is the option of minimal spiritual input, e.g. the Taoist philosophy that the best choice, the only choice, is to accept that the universe will unfold as it will, and the better course is act in accord. Doesn't absolve me of making choices when I must, but makes it easer to take.

    Second, there can be choices in which there are no obvious bad consequences; like winning the lottery and having to decide both what to do with the rest of your life, and what to do about all the relatives and old friends that come crawling out of the woodwork.
      J.D. Ray likes this.
  2. Not the Territory
    Insightful. I appreciate your understanding of how differently choices appear when viewed in hindspect.

    I personally think that there is always a right and a wrong way to act. e.g. throwing acid on someone is always wrong. Period. This is because I find fully subjective (apologetic) morality abhorrent. It is, however, hard to identify right and wrong when the system gets more complex and, as you stated, one can't even predict the outcome.

    You also touched on morality a bit here. Personally, given that God is dead, I'm always fearful of myself deciding that I am my own God. It seems that an individual's value system is vulnerable to self-serving rearrangements. e.g. people pirate media because they can get away with it, regardless of it being right or wrong (not judging, just an observation). Anyone can justify anything. I've heard too many times that it's okay to steal from Walmart because "they're a big company." Some value system bigger that one's self is needed, and unfortunately the state's code is also exceptionally fallible.

    And that leads me to the "unverifiable assumption that there is some truth to that religion." Yes, it's unverifiable, aged like milk, senselessly dogmatic, and exploited throughout history. But how many hundreds of millions of innocents would have survived if people had respected the 10'th Commandment during the 20th century: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours farm, nor his house, nor his cattle, nor anything that is his." Is that a verification of some evident truth? I don't know.

    This blog post also reminds me of the time I realized that not doing something was just as much a choice as doing something. If we didn't have choices, what would we even have left as an identity?

    "I didn't do anything wrong," said Echo.
    "No, you didn't do anything right," replied the metaphysical world.
  3. GrahamLewis
    To say that there is always a right and wrong way to act simply begs the question of how we decide what is right and wrong.

    Your acid-throwing example seems like a no-brainer. No sane and emotionally stable person would, out of the blue, throw acid on another person. Fair enough. But let's change it a bit. What if you were a member of an underground resisting occupation of your nation by a sinister and evil force, and your organization has chosen, for tactical reasons, to terrorize occupying troops with acid. Not so simple then. Help the resistance or refuse on higher moral grounds? Or suppose someone were holding your spouse hostage and threatened to throw acid on them unless you did the same to a designated target not personally known by you. More complicated by far. Save your spouse or save some unknown other?

    All three situations -- out of the blue, political statement, and saving your spouse -- require choices, the first obvious, the second and third, more complicated. Each time you evaluate and choose (albeit in the out-of-the-blue option you may not even think about it).

    As always, IMHO.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice