Free will

A man who visits a prostitute or watches pornography has most probably never had his mother advocate free sex to him, nor encourage him to commoditize sex or objectify women. Yet he persists in these activities. Why? Is his mother to blame? Perhaps we can consider the notion of free will here.

Evil abounds in this world. But rather than question whether God exists or not to stem it, do we question our personal choices that perpetuate evil? Every puff of nicotine shortens the life of one’s neighbour: do we give up smoking? Every moment spent in an air-conditioned room increases global warming: do we turn the machine off although the temperature soars to 45degrees Celsius? Every packaged good we buy contributes to the issue of waste disposal of plastics: do we opt for eco-friendly measures or put our convenience first? Our daily choices have a cumulative impact on ourselves, others or the environment. Yet when things go wrong, we hasten to conclude that God does not exist. We forget that the cumulative impact of our choices is very much to blame. And those choices were made based on free will.

When calamity strikes why is the atheist hasty to proclaim the non-existence of God? Why cannot the focus instead be on what we, as mankind, can do to help other fellow people in distress? Otiose deliberations about the existence of God helps no one. You see, the concept of free will essentially shoots down the essence of the atheist’s argument. It essentially deprives him of the opportunity to make the individual responsible for his actions. The exercise of free will is, essentially, the reason we face the issue of climate change, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a selfish few, deforestation, famine, the proliferation of AIDS, corruption: the list is endless.  One can readily swerve the issue towards God and his existence but ignore the implications of humanity’s hedonism and self-seeking choices.

As long as deliberate harm is not attempted on others, what enables an individual to find meaning in life is his own personal choice and right. So much so that such a right has been enshrined in our constitution.

The issue on Uttarakhand, rather than triggering debates on the existence of God, should question what we, as human beings, are doing to help those affected by the calamity. Energy channelized to appeal to the conscience of those better off to help those suffering, would be far more constructive than empty discourse.