The word choice is employed in common speech in a matter of fact way that disguises the complexity of thought that surrounds it. Choice expresses a concept and that concept when probed exposes how we view our consciousness. What do you mean by choice when you offer it to another? What are you offering? Does the other person understand choice the same way that you do?
Inherently, we as humans know that we possess the attribute of choice but we often build cases to prove that we don’t. Why? Instinctively we understand the possession of choice also implies the possibility of blame. Hence, no-choice defences (“It’s in my genes,” “The devil made me do it,” “I was a victim also”) are burdening the legal system to the point of collapse. No-choice defences are just convenient excuses most of the time. Instinctively we know that if choice can be dismantled then blame disappears as well.
The computer literate community by implying that computers have the attribute of choice contributes to the demise of choice. Computer programs are employed to make ‘decisions’ based on evidence that is quantified in some convenient way. But do computers really decide anything? If choice, or decision making, implies responsibility and hence the possibility of blame, computers do not make choices. Computers are not held responsible for anything. True, computers are often blamed for mistakes that show up on some transactions, but only in jest. If a bank truly considered the computer to blame, they would dismiss the computer and not the programmer.
The idea that choice can be embodied in a computer is defended by many. But if the kind of impotent choice a computer makes is indeed the same kind of choice we make then “no-choice” legal defences are valid in every case. Society is becoming accustomed to a feeble concept of choice that means nothing more than a constrained reduction of options. Gone are the concepts of responsibility, intent and blame, replaced by circumstance, constrained optimums and innocence. Innocence, however, cannot be acquired by a manipulation of words. If a party is guilty, innocence cannot be secured by proclamation. All that can happen is that the guilty party is forgiven or pardoned. The concepts of guilt and innocence are wrapped up in the meaning of the word choice.
Praise, the opposite of blame, is also associated with choice. It seems reasonable that praiseworthy behavior is not forced behavior. In some sense choice must be involved. Yet even here there is a tendency to hide the truth. Often people are praised for their good looks or their intelligence as if they chose to be that way. Alternatively, an ugly or mentally disabled person is shunned as if they chose to offend people. For praise or blame to be proper responses, choice is necessary. This concept needs to be understood if life is to be lived beyond the superficial reactive responses of robots.
In blogs 2 and 3 of choice I describe what choice that implies the possibility of praise or blame is not, and then what it is. The reason for outlining these ideas is to make clear the ramifications of dismissing the real meaning of choice and replacing this meaning with a counterfeit. Blog 4 of choice draws the conclusions of blogs 2 and 3 together and outlines our position of responsibility as moral agents.
0 Comments