Ross Farrell argues that "choice is, in almost all cases, an absolute good and should be maximised in virtually every possible situation."

His argument is highly individualistic and a-historical. Individuals, he asserts, are the best judges of the direction of their lives and how they should exercise their talents. "With this responsibility", he says. "individuals flourish or flounder according to their own endeavours and learn from both successes and mistakes." All just a matter of personality and effort? Nothing to do with the structures of opportunity?

The only worked-through example Farrell chooses is the pursuit of the perfect lawn. We can do without a Department of Domestic Lawn Management, he tells us. Now let's get serious, Mr Farrell. Don't you understand that millions of Australians are denied freedom of choice every day and throughout their lives because, through no fault of their own, they have no choice. They cannot exercise a choice about which school their children should go to, or which medical service to use, or where they will live. They have to put up with what's available from the public purse. And in many instances, thought not all, what they get is a very poor service. And they must watch governments hand out subsidies so that those with a choice will be even better able to exercise choice at a reduced cost.

So what does Farrell offer to compensate these poor souls with no choice? He tells them they must exercise their "responsibility to have control over [their] desires and to resist the resentment or envy which can arise when confronted with choices beyond [their] means." They must have the self-discipline to live within their means and to increase their income through legitimate avenues. They must take "appropriate" risks rather than resort to crime or foolhardy gambling.

What a load of gratuitous twaddle.

Saying that "choice" is intrinsically good is a very dubious claim.

I am sure that when a peadophile chooses to attack his victim a totally evil choice has been made. No one could ever say that a choice to attack children is intrinsically good. There are unlimited areas where choice is totally and utterly bad.

The point is choice is simply the medium through which we can access a range of experiences, goods or products that can be good, bad, amazing, depressing etc -or a mix of these.

Choice in itself is totally amoral because it depends on what how you excercise that choice.

The fact is in todays society our elected oligarchs mask their domination of virtually all of our freedoms under the thin guise of 'choice'. We never debate weather we should have a liberal economy instead all we are given is a supposed choice of how to administrate that liberal economy.

The fundamental structure of our entire society is completely dictated by the few power brokers in Canberra and sold to us as a choice.

Its like a hit man justifying murder by offering the victim a 'choice' between being stabbed or shot.

Just a word about choice, and the words of Farrel.
I do not believe we always do have a choice.anymore.
I was a fortunate person to be brought up in an unfortunate situation, placed in orpahanages and so on till I made the choice to bolt, and take my little sister with me, I ,13 and she 11.
An illegal choice, but one I will never regret, we found our mum.
We made good choices and married, made good choices to have children, work hard buy a home etc.
medications choice of schools out the window, choice of foods out the window, choices of outings well not much left to chose from when no money, so different choices.
Then ill health again, no choice to try to go back to work, no choices left to make re going out at all, not even going to TAFE etc, cos its still not free, and unless it was I will never be able to continue my nursing career in mental health , I have a home, but choices even to sell are not really there cos cannot afford to sell, cos won,t get enough to buy a unit let alone a smaller accessible house.
Can chose to live in caravan, but pretty lousy choice when you cannot get around , up steps, confined spaces cos of chronic illnesses etc.
Sorry Mr Farrel, choices are now only for those who didn,t get a bad run.
We can get through 1 bad run, 2 bad runs etc, but circumstances, health alter as we go, age and all that goes with age and ill health and no money living from pension to pension, and not enough to get those much needed heart sprays, or ventolin, cos fuel went up.
Cannot run my group, I did run a support group for others to give them a choice to come out and meet, or suicide, those are the real choices so many australians young and old have to make.

Part One

Just lately there appears on our Online, a preponderance of targeting on the premises of choice.

As an oldie who had to pass his leaving in literature before entering university, one topic had the interesting title of The Tyranny of Fashion, targetting the teenage students who would pretty well don any new clothing design that was new or news, not one design being classical as the old Greeks would say, but as long as it looked different, no matter how ugly or ill-fitting.

Of course the concept of tyranny comes in when it becomes trendy, older people wondering whether the youngsters have gone silly, oldies forgetting about themselves when younger, adopting the latest dress mode and virtually forcing oneself to like it, though not daring to look in the mirror.

But then of course we turn to the most important choice or choices as regards our Western society, which in older periods, according to history books. dealt not so much with apparel but with religion, especially in the Dark Age period from around 300 AD to around 1100 AD.

Turning to Christianity, it seemed Westerners had no choice but not to accept the more frivolous life of the Pagan, but to instil in their minds that life on earth was only the forerunner to the far better Christian Afterlife.

It is so historically interesting that at the turn of the first century AD, it was the Muslims who were enjoying a much better earthly life than the Christians, the more learned Muslims of those days being very interested in Greek philosophy, which also included the scientific, Muslims even improving on the Greek scientific formulas

Then suddenly choice was taken away by bad health, no job, living on benefits, so yes choices had to alter, we still had choice, much lower life style, much less enjoyment in life, cos etc,, always a constant battle to stay on top of bills, and get necessary medications to keep alive.
Cannot afford to sell the house, cos the money we get once mortgage paid won,t be enough to buy a small unit.
climate here is what has kept me out of many months a year of being in hospital, & where we live housing is of the cheapest in Australia.
I ,m really fed up with hearing we have choices , all a lot of crock, many people who become disabled do go on & conquor, again I did, but then another pitfall, get unwell and out you go, back to the start.With this the things get tougher. you have to stop take stock and see what else you can do, do with out.
I went back to TAFE studied mental health and run a group, for people who because they have mental illnesses too complex to deal with will never work again, in a paid job, Can't go back to complets studies,thats CHOICE
So likely will have to give up my group too now cos haven,t the fuel to get there every 2nd day.
This group is not just people off the street, they are referred to us, because they are so fragile, referred by psychiatists, gp,s etc.
Their one hot meal a week, 3-4 veg and meat, will have to be lost .
We have to pay city council $6-50 per hr.
Often comes from my pocket, yes another thing I go without, but these people like me, deserve to live like everyone else.
We have allworked hard all our lives to get what, told we have choices.
Sorry Blah to Farrel, its not that way for far too many australians.
Sandy taylor

Part Two

It is at this period we introduce Peter Abelard, a rather naughty French Monk who as well as being too friendly with the womenfolk, also had a yen for the philosophical, and also very importantly a great yen for the scientific reasoning that Moorish Muslim scholars were offering out in cities such as Toledo in occupied Spain.

Merging Christian faith into the scientific was something Abelard’s rebellious nature had dwelt on for a long time, and thus it was that this Christian monk besides his sermons, gave talks about a need to balance Christian faith with reason - his most famous work - Sic et Non - (Yes and No) including - ‘By doubting we are led to inquiry-and from inquiry we perceive the truth’.

Following Abelard in later years was Albert Magnus whose pupil was the younger St Thomas Aquinas, who in his maturity wrote the Summa Theologica to prove that God Himself is a rational being. Further, the fundamental more scientific aims of Aquinas were firstly, to demonstrate the rationality of the universe as taught by Aristotle, and secondly to establish the primacy of reason.

One wonders why the above is not taught in most high schools, especially as St Thomas Aquinas is regarded along with St Augustine as the two greats of AD Christianity?

Is it because faith has become so precious in the higher echelons of our churches, as well as possibly in some branches of our governments, that they forget that true dinkum faith might allow us also the liberty to reason, as Peter Abelard and St Thomas Aquinas gave intimation.

Indeed, we could well say that our faith is now being abused as always in wartime, feeling sure that the worrying mess in Iraq might have our government planning that finger pointing as of Kitchener in early WW1, 'Yours is not to reason why. Yours is but to do or die.'

Grandkiddies, Frank and Daniel - I agree with you all. It seems a very naive statement to say that "choice" is good. I may choose to act immoraly and harm someone - is that good? Surely the word "choice" needs qualifying? Informed choice. Educated choice. Ethical Choice. Immoral choice. Choice without moral, ethical or informative paradigms would surely equal anarchy?

One of the collective nouns for a group of “individuals” is “society”.

The individual is the active component (and only active component) or constituent of “society” or any other collective noun used to describe any group of people, be they identified by kin, tribe, nation or race.

So I would agree wholeheartedly with Ross’ view of limiting individual choice will, consequently, impoverish the quality of existence of the individual and thus reflect negatively upon the quality of the society into which individuals collect.

Some might feel too indolent of apathetic to take control or feel threatened by failure for responsibility for their own destiny.

I will always know what is better and best for me than some remote bureaucrat or politically inept sociologist manipulatively engineering and subverting my and everyone else’s individual rights and choices forcing us tocomply with their definition of an ideal or righteous society.

It has often been said, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The best way of avoiding the consequences of absolute power is to leave individuals alone to make their own choices instead of the corrupt and powerful imposing them upon us.

FrankGol “What a load of gratuitous twaddle.”

If that is the way you see it Frank, all I can say is, I am glad you are not making any choices for me or on my behalf.

Obviously you are happier to abrogate your opportunity of choice to some leveling dullard of a bureaucrat somewhere way off in Canberra or the UN but I am not and would commend Ross Farrelly on his article.

I think this deserves closer examination.

Daniel06 says:

>>Saying that "choice" is intrinsically good is a very dubious claim.

I am sure that when a peadophile chooses to attack his victim a totally evil choice has been made. No one could ever say that a choice to attack children is intrinsically good. There are unlimited areas where choice is totally and utterly bad.<<

Clearly, the choice that was made here - the choice to be evil - is reprehensible.

But it is the result of choice, not the availability of choice, that is reprehensible; the ability to choose has to be considered separately from the end-product of that choice.

In order to put this in perspective, consider a situation where no choice at all is available. Not only would it be impossible to be evil, but it would be impossible to be good either, since both states rely at some point upon a personal election.

Once we can grasp this essential truth - that choice is an intrinsic and inseparable part of humanity - we can argue our intestines out as to how much choice is good or bad for us. But it is not realistic to condemn the ability to choose simply because it makes bad choices possible.

Anthony Burgess nailed it over forty years ago in his "A Clockwork Orange". Once Alex's impulse to do damage to others was stilled, he became inhuman.

The standard interpretation of this is that "Burgess ultimately argues that even evil, so long as it is chosen, is better and more human than the forced, deterministic goodness", and I agree with him.

Pericles, at the end of my response to Farrell's posting I did indeed say, “What a load of gratuitous twaddle.” But I don't like you misrepresenting me (whether by choice or by misreading). I did not say or imply that people's choices should be made by others. That's not my position at all. Far from it. So, rest assured dear Pericles - you are safe from my interference with your choices as I hope I will be from yours in future.

Now what did I describe as "gratuitous twaddle"? Answer: Farrell telling those who are too poor to have a choice that when confronted with choices they can't afford they must control their desires and resist resentment or envy. He urges them to live within their means and to increase their income through legitimate avenues rather than resort to crime or foolhardy gambling. So what I called "gratuitous twaddle" is someone who may have the wherewithal to make lifestyle choices telling those who don't have the resources that they must not become criminals or gamblers nor be envious, but to be patient, accept the status quo and work hard.

I ask you: what assumptions is Farrell making about those millions of Australians who can't afford to choose to send their children to private schools or haven't go the money to choose to have elective surgery in private hospitals or to buy a house where they would like to live? That they are tempted to turn to crime or gambling?

In retrospect, I think I was very moderate in my response to Farrell's insensitive arrogance but, mindful of the sensitivites of On Line participants, I'd better choose to stay with "gratuitous twaddle". Is that OK with you dear Pericles?

Pericles, I have addressed the exact issue you have raised, including the Burgess example, in a short article: http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2006/03/morality-human-dignity.html

The point is that humans do, irrevocably, have a free will. So our ability to do good or evil is not at stake. The stress, therefore, shouldn't be on the fact of free will as the fulfilment of our moral nature. It should be on what we do with this free will: on our efforts to seek the good as individuals and as human communities.

In may arguments it is important to limit the scope so that some obscure example from Adis Ababa in the 3rd Century BC does not completely unseat what may be a valid point that the author is making. Ross Farrely has not limited the scope of his argument and appears to have had an epiphany interrupted when it was only half way through. Yes, human freedom should only be curtailed when its exercise limits the freedom of others but Ross Farrely’s argument coughs and splutters to an ignominious end with no concrete conclusion.

Society recognising the inherent intelligence of every adult flies in the face of the Darwin Awards (www.darwinawards.com) which are awarded to adults who clearly lack intelligence, competence and the ability to make choices that would preserve their own life. Communities must constrain individual choices when they impinge on the economic and welfare benefits of the community as a whole, not just the rights of some individuals in the community. Some individuals need protection from themselves.

On a more serious note, and on a global scale, individuals sometimes lack the economic means for improvement because of action or inaction by their political leadership. Equality of opportunity, and consequent leveling of the playing field to allow choices devoid of economic circumstances would be a worthy goal, but in his conclusion Ross Farrely uses weasel-words to say that poor people should just stay that way. While recognising that there are various types of poverty including absolute poverty as suffered by many of the worlds population, there is also relative poverty experienced by some in Australia, whose choces are limited. I don’t thank the oppressed people of Darfur would agree that they should stay poor. Neither do I.

Frankgol, please throw your verbal hand grenades at the right target in future - it was Col whom you believe is responsible for misrepresenting your post.

Mark, an interesting article at the other end of the link provided, but could you expand upon it a little, as I can't quite tell whether you are expressing agreement or disagreement.

>>This view is, of course, the standard liberal one... that we have dignity as humans because of a freedom to choose our actions according to our own individual will and reason.<<

Not sure why this should be labelled this way, but I have to ask - if this is the "standard liberal" view, what is the "conservative" one?

>>Note that all that liberals care about is that we are self-directed according to our own values. This, in their opinion, is sufficient to create a human dignity. My values could be anything at all, but as long as they are mine and I am free to enact them, I am fulfilling my moral status as a human.<<

You appear to be falling into the same hole again. In order to take a quick whack at "liberals", you ascribe to them the notion that the availability of choice automatically entitles it to be used for evil, ergo choice per se is evil, QED.

It is sounding suspiciously like a straw man, where the indefensible position - using the sanctity of choice to justify paedophilia - is being allocated to your perceived enemies, those nasty liberals.

Bad Liberals. Drop it.

Pericles, you’re right. It was not you I should have targeted. Please accept my sincere apologies. I’ll be more careful with attributions in future. I hope the collateral damage wasn’t too upsetting.

Col Rouge, everything I addressed to Pericles about gratuitous twaddle should have been addressed to you. I’d be interested in your response.

Pericles, Mark and Frank..... are u blokes trying to do me out of lines ?
I cannot think of a better argued case for the need for (and from my perspective ‘existence of’) reference to revealed truth as a basis for moral choices.

Pericles points us to the Clockwork Orange character who stopped being human when he could not fulfill his need to hurt people. Reference to Paedophilia are used to support the idea of ‘evil’ choices. The ‘Liberal’ view seems to be that true humanity and fulfillment only comes when we are free to EXercise our choices, be they evil or good.

Oh.. another point, I hope NO-one of you ever tells me that our values are not dictated as much by philosophers via art, media and education as by our supposed ‘intrinsic’ value system that humanists rave on about.

Nambla is constantly telling us the Man/Boy sexual experiences can be ‘positive’. But as Kyle on the SouthPark episode about them says “Dude.. you have sex with children”.. then again (when they don’t get it) “DUDE... you have SEX with CHILDREN !”...... etc...

For some, values are relative to ‘whatever turns you on’ and Burgess in CWO suggests that when individuals are not able to fulfill their choices they cease to be human. This is of course the existentialist view of life where right and wrong exist only in the individual mind and are arbitrary concepts.

The problem though, is that while Pericles views such activity as ‘attacking’ children as ‘clearly evil’ sadly, it is not only ‘not clear’ for a significant element among us, but they would regard US as the weirdo’s for not adopting a similar position.

The 10 commandments have never seemed so unassailably wise and solid as when I read threads like this one. (not as ‘laws’ but as a foundation for moral choices and social values)

Failure to recognize this, gives us “Alex” and who knows where he might pop up..perhaps in the form of child porn in the Crown Prosecuter’s office in Sydney ?

thank you grandkiddies, for pointing out the reality of life for many people.

i always enjoy the smugness of the fortunate claiming credit for their good fortune, and wagging their finger at those with less access to choices than they have, for daring to desire or claim a fair go - even for their children.

the purpose of a publicly funded education system ( and all aust schools are publicly funded) in a civilised society is to help iron out the inevitable inequalities of opportunity that are visited upon all of us at birth, not to exaggerate and intensify them. We tax everyone when we promote and encourage only those who are lucky due to an accident of birth rather than on actual talent and merit.

You can judge a society by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens, not by how many "choices" it gives to its most privileged.

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,

The french hit the nail on the head with their revolutionary slogan.

Liberty means access to the choices championed by mr Farrelly.
Equality means that everyone has access to all (or most) choices (ie social justice).
Fraternity means that we don't begrudge access to these choices to anyone else (ie social harmony).

Priviledges bestowed by accident of birth see to it that not everyone has access to the same choices. We attempt to remedy this by taxation and redistribution of wealth. I don't see anything wrong with it.

While I am all for lots of choices, a world without social justice or social harmony would become a Darwinian free-for-all and not a nice place to live in. At the risk of sounding like a politician that would be frankly unaustralian and some compromises must be made.

Gusi, you haven't considered what went wrong with the "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" belief. The French Revolution led to tyranny. Most intelligent people, including young progressive types, had recoiled from any sympathy with it by the year 1800.

The natural forms of connectedness between people are usually unchosen. For instance, I don't "choose" to have a connection to my mother or father or other members of my family. I don't "choose" to have a connection to my fellow countrymen or to people of my own ethny. I don't get to "choose" a sense of connectedness to members of my own sex.

Therefore, when "liberty" is defined as being able to choose, it usually means an insistence that natural forms of connectedness are overthrown in favour of purely political ones. We get to be citizens and members of voluntary associations and little more.

That's why the kind of "liberty" promoted in the French Revolution doesn't lead to a stable kind of "fraternity" at all, but to an atomisation, in which it is assumed that society is made up of millions of blank-slate individual wills, each pursuing its own desires.

Some people think these individual wills can be harmonised through the state (left-wingers), some through the free market (right-wingers). Genuine conservatives don't take sides in this debate, because we don't strip individuals of natural forms of connectedness in the first place.

David, I didn’t directly refer to moral choices in this thread but rather focused on real choices about life style and life chances. I challenged Mr Farrelly’s original posting for his apolitical assumption that choice and freedom exist in a socio-economic vacuum and relate solely to individual effort and character.

I was irritated by his assumption that we all have equal chances to exercise choice. Clearly this is a view from a position of privilege which carries the ludicrous implication that anyone too poor to exercise choice (e.g. of schooling, housing, medical services) is somehow personally deficient and responsible for their own circumstances.

Then came Mr Farrelly’s patronising advice to the poor: when you see choices beyond your means don’t be tempted to a life of crime or gambling - have the self-discipline to live within your means and to increase your income through legitimate avenues. My experience is that many low-income people are morally scrupulous and many rich and powerful people wouldn’t know an ethical position if it hit them between the eyes.

FrankGol. Now you have chosen to address me.
Your statement of complete dismissal as in “What a load of gratuitous twaddle.”

It is difficult for you to claim “I think I was very moderate in my response to Farrell's insensitive arrogance”.

I found nothing “insensitive” or “arrogant” about Ross Farrelly’s article.

However, that is a matter of individual interpretation and how we interpret is always conditional upon our underlying individual choices. I am just pleased to repeat, I am relieved you are not authorised to make the choices, interpret or express opinions for me, especially when you seem to be making such a hash of expressing your own.

Gusi, nice spin on the French revolution.

Richard, the problem with the terror, which followed the idealism of the French revolution was, as I alluded to in my previous post

“It has often been said, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The best way of avoiding the consequences of absolute power is to leave individuals alone to make their own choices instead of the corrupt and powerful imposing them upon us.”

The vacuum in France following revolution and collapse of all state authority led to a dominance of power in the hands of one central committee. It was the corruption or that committee which produced the terror, not the ideals which Gusi alluded to.

I will admit we have seen similarities of corruption and abuse of power and breakdown of law and order, following the collapse communism in the independent states which comprise the former USSR (which, itself was corrupt).

Ena, only by aspiring to excellence do individuals pull society along. Restricting the right of individuals to self determine merely ensure that mediocrity is the best we all can hope for and

“how it treats its most vulnerable citizens,”

is impeded by an inability to support, fund or supply “how it treats”.

As for “thank you grandkiddies, blah”

I am 56, you must be absolutely wizened crone to think I am in the age range of your “grandkiddies”!

To deploy a FrankGol expression “What a load of gratuitous twaddle.”

Mark,

I think the tyranny and dictatorship that followed the french revolution were not caused by the ideal of the revolution but by poor "change management". ie the french revolution was hijacked by opportunists.

Something similar happened in Australia with Pauline Hanson's party. The ideals of her party appealed to many but without an existing party mechanism, the new party members had minimal scrutiny and several opportunists got through. PH ended up paying the price in jail.

Exactly the same happened with Pim Foruyn's party in Holland a few years ago. His populist ideas attracted many people. Party candidates were selected on the basis of one or two interviews with little or no reference checks. PF was assassinated but his party went on to get 22% of the vote. In a proportional recreation system that meant a lot of MPs. In the ensuing years a number were forced to resign in disgrace after their "real" past became known.

I am not an historian but I suspect the same thing happened in France, except that without the stable democratic background the bad guys hijacked the state.

With fraternity I don't mean that we should love each other as our siblings. I don't think that would be realistic. I see it more as social harmony. ie ladies can exercise their choice to enjoy the Cronulla beach in a bikini others can exercise their choice of not eating pork.

Boaz, at some point you need to stop skim-reading these posts for hooks upon which to hang the tired hat of your down-home evangelism, and address the points that have been made.

>>Pericles points us to the Clockwork Orange character who stopped being human when he could not fulfill his need to hurt people.<<

Once again, you are confusing the evil of the choice that was made with the ability to choose in the first place.

Alex was deprived of his ability to choose. The fact that it was the ability to choose a particular type of evil - ultraviolence - is simply the whim of Burgess. It would have been an equally powerful story if he had chosen to depict, say, a priest deprived of his ability to choose good.

>>The ‘Liberal’ view seems to be that true humanity and fulfillment only comes when we are free to EXercise our choices, be they evil or good.<<

Please articulate for me the "conservative" (or non-Liberal, if you will) view on this. Surely it is cannot be "true humanity and fulfillment only comes when we are unable to exercise our choices"

>>Nambla is constantly telling us the Man/Boy sexual experiences can be ‘positive’<<

I have noticed this unhealthy fixation of yours with Nambla. I assume that you use them here as an example of the evils associated with choice. But can you not understand that it is possible - and in this case necessary - to condemn the choice that was made, without at the same time condemning the existence of choice itself? That is akin to banning rope on the basis that it could be used to garotte someone. Buying rope is not a sin, but winding it around someone's neck with a view to ending their life, is.

One more try

>>Burgess in CWO suggests that when individuals are not able to fulfill their choices they cease to be human.<<

No. Burgess in CWO suggests that when individuals are not able to exercise choice, they cease to be human

I think we've lost the point of the original post - it was to do with choice in education and how it "benefits" us all.

Report after report shows that with the de-regulation of educational provision and its increased exposure to market forces, the educational choices across ALL SOCIAL CLASSES diminishes. One type of control is merely substituted for another type of control - in other words, removing government control means that big business soon slips its foot in the door, whether that business is "Education Unbound", "Educational Solutions" or the Catholic Church.

At least when government has control (in a democracy like Australia's) the voters have the right to demand transparency.

Ross Farrelly and Kevin Donnelly (similar surnames, even ... hmmmm ...) try to push the choice / vouchers / privatisation line time after time and each attempt looks lamer than the last. A bit like a photocopy of a photocopy.

I have made many posts and have several links on these matters at:

petaldavid.blogspot.com

Choice is not intrinsically good or evil - there's going to be a fair balance of 'choices' that are going to be wrong, just as there would be a fair amount that are right.

But I think if we were to divide the question into two options: 'choice' and 'limiting choice' the latter would prove the more reprehensible in more occasions.

Some choices need to be limited - fine. But the majority of choices you make each day are ambivalent.

Say I'd like an orange juice rather than tea. Or to use the red pen instead of the blue. These choices are not wrong, but it would be wrong for someone to tell me I had to use the red pen.

Perhaps at work, fine. But I have the choice to leave work, even if my choice leads to impoverishment.
Again, it would be wrong for someone to tell me I had to stay - that would be tantamount to slavery.

On the other hand, were I to choose to attack someone, that choice must be circumscribed in all but the most unusual circumstances.

But let's face it - if 80 per cent of our choices are neutral, ten are good and ten are harmful, then 'limiting choice' is the wrong option 90 per cent of the time.

TurnRightThenLeft, there are mathematical figures and there are figures of speech. Are you sure you haven't confused the two? You say, "if 80 per cent of our choices are neutral, ten are good and ten are harmful, then 'limiting choice' is the wrong option 90 per cent of the time".

Your logical fallacy is to simply add them all up as if every choice is equally weighted. So you (unintentionally?) give the choice to attack someone the same mathematical significance as the choice of orange juice instead of tea. Surely you don't intend to give them a similar moral rating?

Murder is a wrong choice all the time and we should limit people's choice on that for 100% of the time. But if you want to choose orange juice 100% of the time, that's cool by me. The hardest cases are the ones in between. For these, we don't need statistical formulae - we do need moral reasoning and well-informed public debate.

To the author: Ross, given your well-placed suspicion of centralised curricula, I am interested to know your views on the status of "choice" in an outcomes-based environment vs. a prescribed-content curriculum. I ask this question in the context of my own statements on the matter, published here in OLO: "The new curriculum micro-managers", 23 June 2006.

Frankgol -

I agree, and was not trying to use some mathematical percentage to prove whether choice is good or evil - it can be either. My point is that most of the time it is benign. Even if you weight choices by their significance, again, it will turn up benign most of the time.

I would still argue that if we were to look at the intrinsic concepts of choice vs limiting choice, choice comes up better - if for no other reason as limiting choice implies someone is doing the limiting, and that hints at dominance.

Many argue that laws are based on morals.

I would simply argue that morals are ultimately a matter of perspective - most religions have condemned practices which today are often seen as benign - once upon a time it was seen as a serious sin within the Christian faith to eat meat on a friday.

On the other hand, we can't simply live in a world with no laws - chaos would reign, and we couldn't hope for a reasonable standard of life.

One possible measure, is the effect our actions have on others. This is still exceedingly difficult to quantify, but I would argue that it is at least more quantifiable than a moral perspective.

Eating meat on friday harms no one (well, maybe the animal being eaten, though it probably wouldn't care if it had been eaten on the Monday instead). So there is really no basis, other than the religious which is not shared by all, to keep such a law.

Laws governing matters like illegal drug use are contentious - the individual needs to have control over their body, but what about the cost to the taxpayers of their hospital bills?

That being said... what if they are willing and capable of paying all their associated health costs?

Cont'd

Then there are the arguments that their influence will spread to others, and that the only way to stop drugs is to prevent their spread altogether.

But then... we still allow alcohol abuse and smoking, which are by far the most damaging drugs. Perhaps because they are the legal ones, but then again, perhaps not. Perhaps society would be better off without alcohol though they say a glass of wine a day is beneficial to your health.

Ultimately, by limiting most of these choices, we create as many problems as we solve.

I don't claim to know all the answers, but I think I know a fair number of the questions.

Frankgol, if you're calling for a reasoned debate, then I'm in.