Voted for
- No
I believe man chooses according to their nature and cannot choose otherwise.
If at a point in time, we are inclined to choose one thing over another thing. That is precisely what we will choose.
Our desires are determined by complex processes such as the state of information in our mind, neurotransmitters, cultural influences etc
Would vote for yes but I'd have to using posting authority for dpoll and go through with another set of processes just to make this reply.
Anyway, I believe man has this capability to do or not and it goes beyond just looking at it at a univariate dimension. It's not a question that can be answered in a linear sense because, as you said, these are determined by complex processes which is another theme of the problem being multifactorial.
The idea of being altruistic and committing to altruistic acts is irrational from a survival standpoint because it serves no benefit for the one committing and only puts them at a disadvantage for sharing resources to the point of losing one's life at extremes.
It's not just an answer of whether you'll save your significant other with yes or no because those don't really do the question justice. It's a yes or no, but there are going to be conditions imposed and the idea that you are presented with the opportunity to weigh them in your head and select a course of action is already part of the process of committing to a choice.
Your significant other can be your world, so you would say yes, but then you found out they deceived you, so you say no, then a plot twist happens that it wasn't intentional and their harm to you became a benefit for the greater good but so now you're placed with even more dilemmas as the information you're given gets weighed in. And if they deceived you, you're cool with it, but to what extent can you tolerate the deception and its consequences. It's not a black and white answer that fits a question that deserves a multivariate approach to answer.
The common hazard here is trying to simplify complex questions and forcing simple answers to these questions.
Multifactor or not, I still believe the decision is determined by factors out of the person's control and think that applies to all of us.
Those factors exist at a systemic problem but these are precipitating factors and not necessarily a finite outcome. The problem with a yes or no is assuming all variables are absolute but we know precipitating factors (things that can be changed) and predisposing factors (things that can't be changed) affect one another interdependently to arrive at a complex decision. If we look at outcomes between 0 and 1, we're going to find categories that only fall under 0 and 1.
In that sense, we end up generalizing factors unique at the individual level. Like how can two people having almost similar life circumstances still end up with different conclusions or same conclusions. We know it's much more complex that just merely get told an illusion of choice.
The problem I have with this thinking is that it takes away accountability of the individual and surrenders that control to external forces under the big umbrella called society. By all means, I do agree that being in desperate situations can be tempting conditions to do evil but if it's the expected outcome then existing outliers that do altruistic deeds don't make sense at all.