Free Will and How We Exercise It

To follow on from my previous post, we have free will. 

So how should we use it?

I'm going to bring together a number of topics I've talked about over the years, so some of this is definitely repetitive.

Like how we choose our responses. If someone tries to punch you, most people think in simple terms - dodge. Block. Punch back.

But as martial artists know, there are other options. Slip a little to the inside, get your hip under and lift, guide them off their feet and/or off balance and throw. 

You have options in how hard or soft to respond: whether you're going for a killing blow, or a joint lock where you can control them, or simply trying to avoid their attacks without getting hurt. 

You can't always control what other people do, but you can almost always control how you respond to it. 

Exercising free will thus involves consciously choosing those responses, with the awareness of how your response will interact with the world around you, so that you can choose an action that will lead to the kind of world you want to live in.

Okay, that's a mouthful. Let me break it down.

Have you ever shared something or seen something shared on social media with the simple phrase 'signal boost'? 

People are choosing to amplify whatever they're sharing. They're not creating the message, they're just trying to make sure it spreads a little further and has a wider impact. 

Conversely, I am where chain letters go to die. All of that "share this with ten other people?" stuff? Yeah, no. Not spreading that, not amplifying it, not boosting it. (Obviously, numerous other people do not share my view here, or we wouldn't still be seeing them.)

This goes back to an idea that I know for sure is part of Christian and Confucian traditions, and wouldn't surprise me to find in others.

The Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12) - 

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

The Silver Rule - 

What I do not wish others to do to me, I do not wish to do to others

(I found a post discussing the Silver Rule in more depth here.)

Both touch on something I've pointed out before - that whatever we choose to do, other people tend to copy and mimic it. And we will see other people doing the exact same thing.

That, for example, lying about election results when it means supporting Trump also means that some people will claim Mitch McConnell only won because of election fraud. That's a bit simplified, but I think you see my point.

It's a bit like the physics 'transfer of force' example (which I just learned is called a Newton's cradle) - 

Both of these traditions are pointing out the same thing, and pointing out that we can deliberately choose which types of behaviors we want spreading (or not.)

As a lot of people paraphrase Mahatma Gandhi - 'Be the change you want to see'.

This brings up something else. Most of what I'm saying is not actually new, so much as showing how I've come to internalize and agree with quite a bit of our collective wisdom. 

It's more like Jesus said "Love your neighbor as thyself" and I'm saying "Yes. Really."

This is perhaps better captured in some out-of-character Jesus memes-

Yes. He really meant it. No. Whatever excuse you've come up with to justify not loving your neighbor is not okay.

I know quite a few people are down on religion these days (understandable given some of the ways people of faith abuse the name of God), but I do believe religions have something important and useful to say about us. About human nature, and how we can better build the societies we live in.

That's not to try and say all religions are ultimately the same, or to minimize their very real differences. Nor am I saying people without religion are lost, since many of them have internalized their own moral codes. I mostly draw on the Bible and Christianity because that's what I'm most familiar with. 

Here's another example of what I'm talking about.

Most people have heard of 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.'  It's from the Old Testament, and to modern ears it sounds kind of... vengeful.

But as I understand it, this was a way of limiting violence. As science has shown, we all have a tendency to feel the harm done to us is greater than the harm we do to others. That is, if someone cuts off your arm you might feel justice is served after you've killed them. After killing them, his family may feel justice is served by killing you and two other members of your family. 

The harm done keeps getting escalated until you're in a blood feud, and each side feels like they're just trying to get justice.

So the Bible limited it...  they said if you lose an eye, justice would be taking the other guy's eye. NOT killing him. 

Keep it proportional, don't go justifying an even worse response as retaliation. (I found it interesting that The Untamed had almost the exact same issue, without the religious elements. A villain in the story lost a finger, and in retaliation murdered the family of the guy who hurt him. When someone pointed out that a pinkie was not worth the lives of all the people he killed, he insisted it was. After all, it was his finger.)

The New Testament even goes further, though there's enough debate about what Jesus meant by 'turn the other cheek' that I don't want to dwell on it too much. 

There have been some interesting experiments in game theory, regarding tit-for-tat (a strategy in experiments where two players play against each other multiple times, so that they get to know each other and build strategies accordingly. Tit-for-tat is a strategy where you cooperate on the first round, and then basically mimic the other person's behavior from the previous round. If they cooperated, you cooperate again. If they didn't, you don't. There's a lot more to it than that, of course, but you can read up on that yourself.)

What's interesting is that in at least some scenarios, a strategy of 'forgiving' a lack of cooperation works. Iirc, it worked best in scenarios where players accidentally defect, or might have misunderstood and defected. 

More importantly though, I think 'turn the other cheek' relates more to standing up for yourself while making it clear you're not attacking the other side. (Again, like I've discussed in previous posts).

It allows you to help provide criticism and negative feedback without making it personal, or sending the signal that you hate and want to harm the other side. (This is where I really think al Qaeda and other extreme jihadists get it wrong. Suicide bombing where you murder a bunch of people is never holy, because you have mixed up the holiness with attack. The hatred and anger and willingness to do harm overwhelms any other message they are trying to send.)

I could go on and on, but this is the sort of thing anyone with interest can dig into for themselves. What's more interesting is applying it in the world today.

Choose what you want to amplify, choose when you want to act as a breakwater. Think about your full range of options, and choose the one that is most proportional and most likely to build the world you want to live in.

Don't murder people. (Think about it. If you murdered someone for money, what's to stop someone else from murdering you for the same reason? If you let that go unchecked, soon we're all living in constant paranoia that someone is going to try and kill us. Let's just... not do that.)

Don't lie. (Same reasoning.)

Really. It doesn't matter that the other side is doing it. It doesn't matter that you think they're awful and terrible people who need to be defeated. Find another way to respond to them. (You're adults, aren't you? Surely you know by now that 'he started it' is a child's way of thinking.)

Stop this disproportional escalating political nonsense where everything you do is justified by the horrible _____, and everything they do is proof of their utter depravity. 

This doesn't exactly tell you want to do instead, of course... but there is a full range of choices and responding in kind (but harder) is only one of them.