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.