How do you define "choice"?

Question

Personally I define it as taking a course of action when more than one feasible course of action is available to be taken.

How do you define it?

Is there ALWAYS choice involved in everything we do or are there instances in which a course of action must be taken because no other viable options were available?

Oh, and to make this question applicable to this section: if you "know" Hell exists and that you MUST acknowledge Jesus as your salvation in order to be spared eternal torment, can you really say you "chose" to accept Jesus as your savior, or must you say that Hell, at least for any SANE person, was never a viable option to begin with and that accepting Jesus was your only available course of action?

Answer 1

We have amny choices everyday, other times, we have no options.

It is not a choice when hell is the threat... that's blackmail or duress...

Answer 2

I define a choice as an elimination process in which you weigh the pros and cons of each possible course of action until you decide which one is the best to take, sometimes its only the best of the worst you are left with.

There is not always a viable option of choices... sometimes you have to make a hard decision that really was the only way to go. For example, if your dog got hit by a car and was dying and the vet said there was nothing they could do, the dog would die in a few days after suffering horribly.. most sane people would make the right choice and put the dog to sleep and end its misery. Someone could still choose to let the dog stay alive and suffer to die on its own, but most people would not even consider that an option. If you are a Jehovah you could choose to refuse a lifesaving blood transfusion even though you could choose to take the blood and live.. which would be a better choice if you ask me and most other sane people. However there is nothing sane about religion... to the people that refuse blood transfusions if they took the blood they would be punished, but if they dont they die and get eternal bliss in heaven.. so really it does come down to hell and damnation. They dont even consider it an option to choose the resulting punishment in order to make the best choice. It takes away the viability of different choices from people, they claim they have free will and can make a choice but the weighing of pros and cons is unduly influenced by beliefs that aren't even verified. How can one possibly make a real choice when the consequences they percieve are based on a personal belief system that offers only punishment or reward. In effect people who believe in heaven and hell are robbed of a different option, because they believe in the punishment of hell.

PS I completely agree with the poster above me.. whois1957... If I did believe god, heaven and hell were real.. I would still choose to reject god and heaven as a matter of principle.

PSS Its like they would rather suffer now so they can get their "rewards" in another life that I might add they dont even know for sure exists. The way I look at it, I would rather make the choice to take the rewards now and suffer later if that is the result of my decision.

Answer 3

I would define choice as taking a course of action when more than one is available, no matter how devastating or seemingly unsuitable it may be.

As for the second part, that is a very interesting question. It really puts a unique spin on the whole "free will" idea. I would still say that people "chose" to accept Jesus as their savior. Although the consequences are pretty severe, and you would think that any SANE person would "choose" whatever option equaled them NOT spending an eternity in torment, many people who "know" still "choose" to ignore.

Answer 4

My definition of choice is the same as yours. I think that's the way most people would define it and the "most" would be approaching "all."

As for situations of "no alternative options," I think they're probably as rare as a steak that still on it's feet since there is always the option to refuse action and to indefinitely suspend accepting whatever 'the no alternative" situation happens to be.

As for the example of taking a one-way to Hell... first of all it's nonsense and so is believing in Jesus, but since there are other available beliefs, this isn't one of those "no choice" situations, is it? And... if there were no other beliefs out there, if the Jesus-folks were the only choice... take it or leave it... you could always leave it.

(....LOL ... and leaving it is exactly what any wise and thinking person ought to do. ...LOL..)

If you're being stupid enough, (and I know you're not,) to assume that there is a choice of where you'll go after you die... Gosh... Get real. Dead people don't do a whole lot of traveling, or so I've heard. ...LOL...

[][][] r u randy? [][][]
.

Answer 5

Your definition is a good one but begs the queston of what the definition of "feasible" is. It can be a rather vague term that usually ends up meaning what one finds acceptable.

Changing "feasible" to "possible" makes the definition more concrete.

Choice is a factor in all actions that aren't coerced (either by another person or just facts of nature such as a falling rock crushing you). Any time someone is able to consider options and choose one, regardless of the consequences, they are making a choice. The consequences of Hell don't automatically make it impossible to willingly choose that path. I don't believe in Hell, but if I was to come to think it was real (in the traditional religious sense), I would choose it over Heaven. Not because I'm unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to avoid it, but on general principles. I would rather be in a place of eternal torment than in the presence of One who demands such suffering for disobedience.

Answer 6

Actually, if someone doesn't like Jesus, or his commandments, then that person will "choose" not to believe in Jesus' teaching about Hell -- by finding some rationalization for his lack of belief.

===edit===

BTW, some people will still choose seemingly non-viable options if given the choice (like Japanese Kamikaze pilots, etc.).

Answer 7

Praise be to Allah Haraam is that for which the one who does it will be punished and the one who abstains from it will be rewarded, if the reason for his abstinence is following the prohibition of Allaah. 'i believe things like " love"(attraction to the opposite gender) is haram too(including loving your own wife/husband).Because it wil never benifit me in the hereafter,since its not a form of worship.And it makes you forget about Allah and hereafter.Noone is worthy of getting more attention then Allah!' 2nd part of your question: You misunderstood! Islam teaches us to be truthful and realistic. Usually, we love because of Allah and we hate because of Allah. Islam teaches us that a male and female can build up a good relationship founded on marriage. All those stories of media and movies are not helpful to make a person comply with the teachings of Islam. We do not say love is halal or haram because it is a feeling. Maybe it is not under control. You can judge what is under control. But people who fall in love are in many episodes away from the cleansed and pure atmosphere. Marriages that are usually good and lasting marriages are those that start at the least affection. That affection grows after marriage and maybe it will grow until the couples continue their companionship at the Jannah. And Allah knows the best! Jazakallah!

Answer 8

I hear a lot of people say, "I have to do this or that." I say the only thing you HAVE to do is accept the consequences of your choice(s).

For instance, you don't HAVE to breathe. But you accept the consequences of death if you choose not to breathe. It's an extreme example, but it shows that there is a choice to almost everything. The consequences aren't all that great with many choices. If you choose not to pee, you'll hurt yourself. If you choose not to eat, you'll starve. If you choose God, you'll go to heaven. If you don't, you'll go to hell.

Now, the only difference between those examples . . . the only one that isn't a fact is the last one. :)

Answer 9

Choice= Conscious Will
But this is an illusion...

I see what you're getting at, but it's useless rhetoric because it's not life, and either theory can not be scientifically proven.
Basically, in life we have more choices than 'A' and 'B'... there are numerous choices.

But in your theoretical world, I would have to say that we still would have a choice. But most people would not choose Hell due to selfish reasons, and that selfish reason being the avoiding of extreme, unbearable pain.
If I told you that you had a choice of touching a hot stove, or receiving $100, you still have a choice. But you're probably going to pick the most beneficial choice.

Answer 10

Every time I stand on a cliff, I have a choice, jump or step backwards. Jumping is not "feasible" nor "viable" but it is still a choice.

What you are wanting are more appealing choices. You want it to be "fair" and you want more options. Since when is life that way?

Answer 11

nice question.
choices is selected opinions of choosing a for an answer.
choices that lead to different results, some you don't like it and some results you like it.

before selecting a choice, you need to know what is the end result and you need to think whether you thinking the end result is this form or that form, is it true or not, what happen to me when i take that end result.

for your example as above.
i know hell is to scare ppl in submit to the so call god.
i label the hell as false end result.
that left me with other result of not believe in jesus.
after researching for evidence whether it will affect me if i don't believe in jesus.
i find there are no effect on me whether i believe it or not.
i prefer this result and i choose this choice of not believe in jesus.