I value freedom of thought and freedom of choice more than any other fundamental "rights", save for the right to life. Aside from some sort of Jamie Whyte example*, such as having the freedom to drive your car through a crowd of people, I do consider the aforementioned freedoms to be natural rights that any/all intelligent species should be entitled to. That being said, there are pros and cons with "freedom of choice", just as there are with virtually everything in this life. For example, it is an amazing thing for one to be able to make the decisions that will shape their future. Unless, of course, they make poor choices and create an undesirable future. Making the wrong decision is an inherent risk of making decisions, after all. That shouldn't by any means deter anyone from acting/thinking independently; what is the point of living as a vessel for some other entity's thoughts/actions? Despite any possible cons that do or might exist, I will ALWAYS chose to think and decide for myself. Life is far too precious of an experience to waste by following others. I will take any/all information at my disposal into account but, ultimately, make my own decisions and follow them wherever they may lead me.
*This refers to an excerpt from Jamie Whyte's book, Crimes Against Logic, in which he dismantles many false "rights" on the basis that one person's entitlement creates an obligation for all other parties involved. A social variant Newton's third law, if you will.
No comments:
Post a Comment