Concept of need and choice, and consequences

[mumblemumble]

Need, choice and consequences!....3 words which are very important, used a lot, and many will say, and agree, we all "need"!

However, I think many misunderstand both of them. Lets dive into them!

First, need. Need is highly subjective. Why? Because the entire concept pretty much comes down to a computer argument of "if x is true, y happens, if x is untrue, z happens".

Stop all the stupid garbledegook and get the point!

patience, the best concepts take longer than 2 minutes to learn. Quite simply, any need in the world, ANY need, can be forgone IF the consequence is accepted. This is a CHOICE. These 2 are linked. See, think of any situation as life like a branching pathway. 2, possibly more paths. IF you go down 1, other paths open, others close. None is one which allows all paths, so you must CHOOSE your path.

You might say you have many needs.... Food...water...friends... respect... dignity... freedom from discrimination... work...

All of these CAN be done without, but have consequences.

Lack of food brings malnutrition, health problems, death. lack or water means dyhydration, health issues, death. Lack of friends and respect limits happyness, and ones social circle, lack of dignity lowers self esteem, discrimination causes social friction, lack or work means a less reliable income...

Every SINGLE thing in life has a need for it, and this need must be filled to attain it, and if the need is NOT filled, there is consequences. Even something as mild as having hotsauce in your fridge is a "need", but the consequence is very low.

These all said, nobody is FORCED to do such things, and can, and do go without, and can cope. Even with something as extreme as death as a consequence, they are not ever FORCED to eat or drink, death is a consequence. This does not prevent someone from CHOOSING say, to forgo eating and dying for a better cause (see the rimworld video "why did it have to be squirrels" where one guy DIED to save others, dying from starvation).

This brings me to the next one, CHOICE. Choice is something we all have, but they always conflict. My choice might effect someone elses choice, just as someone elses effects mine. I can choose to ask a girl out, and she can CHOOSE to reject me. This does not mean I was not given the choice to ask her out, this means I merely had a choice which did not match hers.

This can lead to conflicting situations, but this still does not limit choice. Lets say an employer says you must be a certain way to work in the company. This is not saying the person DOES NOT have the choice to be that way, but merely is given a consequence for failure to GO with such a choice. The person is free to quit the job, find another, or do anything else, but the "need" of work will be compromised by the person. This in and of itself is not bad, as the interaction was voluntary.

The only times this is really immoral is if NEEDS are taken away without any voluntary entrance into social contract. For instance, getting into consensual fights is legal, and moral. Both parties accept terms and conditions, and accept risks (bruises, cuts, injuries) and thus it is fine. Now, if someone BREECHES the contract, this is generally perceived as immoral. If a rule is for "no bellow the belt hits", and a party member kicks someone in the junk, this is a violation. And obviously, people cannot go around beating up people without asking.

Theres also the issue of choices reciprocating. One can choose say, to try and steal my stuff. This is a choice, one that they can make, and I cannot stop them. However, theres a consequence to it. Their needs WILL be altered, due to my choice, and the choice of the police. If someone grabs my bag, and tried to run past, I would tackle them. This is my choice, but as a reaction to theirs. Them complaining for "he hit me!" would fall upon deaf ears, as he had a choice to steal or not, which was not heavily enforced by a large amount of need. If it WAS out of intense need, it would still be reacted to, but with explanation, it might win more sympathy. One stealing to provide for kids when there's no other options is much more sympathetic than one providing for drugs. But regardless, choices make others make THEIR choices. They can choose their choices, but are still put into a place where they are forced to choose.

All of these, make for a very dynamic system. Anyone can make any choice, but others will give consequences. All consequences limit needs,  but choices can be made to best fill these needs.  And again, these choices have consequences.

In the end, being controllers only of ourselves, our bodies, minds, voice, hands, are best controlling OUR choice to either push forward a belief (which is a need) or to satisfy our base needs at the expense of other needs. Going to work takes our need for rest, freedom, but fills our financial need. Eating sweets fills our need for comfort, but takes from our need of a healthy diet. Being in a relationship fills our need for companionship, but takes from our need of freedom.

So rather than focus so much on others and trying to change them (this is THEIR choice, NOT yours) consider the needs of your life, consequences of the world that you might see, and carefully choose. No matter what, there will be consequences, and some needs will not be met SOMEWHERE, but you go for the best hand you can deal with WHAT you are dealt.  You can make gambles, risks, make choices to try and fill other needs, but you put others needs at risk no matter what you do.

So carefully address your needs,  quantify what needs are more, or less important, consider the consequences of all choices from all parties, and make the choice you must. And when it comes, face the consequence.

Oh and remember, consequence is not a negative only thing, being hailed as a hero is a consequence of rescuing a small child. Its still a consequence