The Power To Choose

… If a person understands themselves as a spiritual being, he/she cannot speak

about not being free: the idea of not being free cannot be applied to the notions 

of intellect, conscience, and love.

Count Leo Tolstoy

Evil does not exist in material nature by itself, but evil exists for every person 

who understands goodness, and who has the freedom of choice between good and bad.

Marcus Aurelius

Both Cited in The Calendar of Wisdom

“To choose not to choose is still a choice” or so it has been attributed to Paul Sartre as one of the chief proponents of a literary and philosophical movement called Existentialism.  

The question of choice is at the root of almost every consideration of ethics and morality and it is also a foundational concern whenever we examine the limits of freedom and the potentials for growth and change in individuals, out into the societies they create.

These two quotes come from the life and thoughts of Dr. Viktor Frankel. He speaks to what I would call the “soul of choice.”  Tolstoy claims the ultimate dimensions of personal choice based on first and foremost defining yourself as a spiritual person. 

Without an examination of his theological views or attesting to his version of liberal Christianity, he would be completely correct! However, those absolutes only hold primacy if you are socially aloof, culturally detached, or living out a purely self-serving life!

Choices are made in context of their meaning and their consequences. Since we do not live in a philosophical or theological vacuum, we are held to the results and effects of our choices by how they will influence others and how they could alter the path of our futures. 

Claiming the ultimate freedom of our minds is truly a lofty sentiment and one that contains an absolute power. The realities of life in relationships intrude. As long as you can live with the consequences of your actions and your choices, then your freedom is absolute and your conscience can be clear.

With Aurelius, we are given the measure of choice as it relates to a more secular ethics and for what could be considered the basis for common law and the foundations of creating a civil society. 

The chief consideration here is that the person or individual has to first know what is good, what is morally acceptable, what is just, sincere, and safe. If the person has not been instructed, informed, or taught then they can maintain an ignorance that can exempt them.

While “ignorance of the law is no excuse” pertains most directly to an agreed upon written and operating criminal code, I am unsure that we can equate that requirement to the issues of morality or the need for interpersonal ethical standards.

Principally, the absence of a values based education, moral and ethical public examples, and religious instruction that is not punitive but progressive are among the factors that would make Aurelius’s wisdom more timeless and true.