Just because you have a choice, it does not mean that any of them has to be right

Freedom of choice, or simply called free will, is said to have been a defining character of human civilization since its beginning. And further, the political movements around the world, including the French revolution, Marx’s social revolution, women's movement, recent decade’s LGBTQ movement, etc., all had increased the amount of this freedom to choose one's way of life. While political movements provided with this liberty, the economic movements like rise of capitalism together with techno-globalization has increased the life choices via exposure and accessibility.

But such liberty also comes with a responsibility to make the right choice as just because one is exposed to many choices, it does not automatically mean any of them has to be right. Maybe, most of them could be wrong; sometimes only one could be right; while in other times, more than one could be right.

This essay will help one not only to make the right choice, but also will help to do so when more than one choice looks equally compelling. Let us begin!

Liberty comes with responsibility

In simple, one's life is the summation of choices made in one’s journey. While many choices in our life might be available, not all of them might be right. The karma concept of Vedic religion tries to explain this by stating that whatever is going to happen will be shaped by your present and past actions. That is, “you reap what you sow.”

Thus, it is important for one to choose right with pure responsibility. This can be explained with a simple example. If one chooses to save extra money in bank instead of spending on unnecessary sin goods like tobacco, wine, etc., such choice might come as a saviour in times of crisis. Just like how when people lost their jobs in COVID-19 pandemic, their savings helped them sustain and bounce back.

The free will vests us with a responsibility, that gets magnified when an individual is devolved more power. Just as quoted by Uncle Ben (from Spiderman), “with more power comes more responsibility.” Take in the case of king Ashoka, who was once a bloodthirsty conqueror with the powerful army in the world. Being in such a powerful position, he had many choices including expanding his territory and influence through iron and blood. But he chose to do so with Dhamma (peace) instead. He wanted to conquer people's heart through Buddhism. That responsible choice of such powerful king was the reason for peace for decades in his empire.

In the modern multipolar world order, it becomes the responsibility of the powerful countries to help others in distress. India illustrated this in 1971 war with Pakistan. When the Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) approached India for help, India at least had three options – One, to push-back the refugees as India was not a signatory of 1951 refugee convention. Two, be a bystander by letting Bangladesh suffer. Three, save Bangladesh from Pakistan. While all three options were available, the first two choices, despite India had the right to make, weren’t the right ones to make. By choosing the third option, India not only restored peace in Bangladesh, but also exemplified to the world the responsible decision making.

While the above simplified examples create an illusion of one ethically right option, this is not generally true. In life, often one is compelled to choose between more than one equally right alternatives. That is where one wonders, what to choose?

What if…. all choices are right?

This situation is called an ethical dilemma. The paradox that lies in these ethical dilemmas is that since all the options are equally good or convincing, choosing any one will lead to compromise of the other. That is, one good comes at the cost of the other good!

It is similar to a zero-sum game, where one's gain will affect others. So, no choice is entirely good or bad, and often lies in the grey area leading to dilemma. And such dilemmas are very routine for a policymaker. Take in the case of construction of dam. Here, the policymaker must choose between three options (to keep it simple) – national development, tribal welfare, and environment protection. Choosing one will lead to the compromise of the other.

This is where choosing only one option between black and white isn’t infeasible since all are equally important. While utilitarian perspective will compel one to choose based on majority benefits, that is not the right option certainly as such trade off will lead to later problems like Naxalism, climate change, etc. Here is where the choice must include blending of all options, and simultaneously minimizing the harm for all the stakeholders.

This can be achieved by conducting environmental impact assessment (EIA) and social impact assessment (SIA), planning the compensatory afforestation (CAMPA), before the project. Besides minimizing harm through these mechanisms, it is also necessary to maximize welfare by distributing benefits through tribal rehabilitation & welfare program like JANMAN, etc.

In the above case, not only were the choices blended to grey, but also our value priorities got reshuffled. Initially, the justice was seen from a utilitarian perspective, i.e. benefits for majority, which was given the foremost priority. But the right choice not only shared the benefits among all, but also minimized the harm to the minorities. This shifted our value priority from majority benefits to equity-based justice, upholding the true essence of democratic justice!

In an ethical dilemma, an individual with wavering mind cannot choose the right alternative. It is necessary for the mind to be calm and composed just like how Shri Krishna preached in Bhagavad Gita – Yoga Samatvam Uchhate (Equanimity is Yoga). Only at such state can the self-introspection be effectively done, reshuffle value priorities accordingly, and then make an assertive choice.

Besides equanimity, one must also muster the courage to face the consequences of one's choice, just like how Jesus Christ did. He got crucified (nailed in the cross) for choosing to propagate the truth and love through his teachings, and he graciously welcomed it. He not only took the responsibility to choose the right path, but also withstood political retaliation, forgiving them for it.

The unimaginable power of free will in the world of abundant choices comes with an undeniable responsibility to choose wisely for universal benefits. In an ethical dilemma, an unshakable mind must look inside and re-order the value system before making the right choice. And such right choice is not devoid of negatives; but demands us to face the consequences with a grit, helping us become a wise & a resilient leader – leading not only the self, but also the world!

For the sake of democracy, let us debate. Do comment your views below!