When I see that phrase I immediately distrust the person or organization.
Are they trying to absolve themselves of responsibility?
Are they truly unaware of the options that always exist?
It is my belief that for any action that I take, there are always alternatives.
My view is that actions involve a choice and that my choice depends on my analysis of the pros and cons relative to my values and my objectives. Rather than say I have no choice I should acknowledge that as among the range of options that I am aware of I am choosing this particular one. I may even go further and disclose my rationale.
Perhaps there are some actions that are so instinctive, automatic, and swift that there indeed is no choice. A child darts in front of my car and I slam on the brakes. Perhaps there was an option to swerve sharply. Perhaps my instinctive reaction can be regarded as a choice.
In most cases however it is clear that there was a choice and a clear reluctance to acknowledge some of the alternatives.
A factory is shut down because management claims it had no choice. It could have chosen to operate even if at a loss.
A union calls a strike claiming it had no choice. It could have chosen to continue working.
A government imposes additional taxes because it had no choice. It could have chosen to operate in a manner that increases its deficit.
The most recent to come to my attention was voiced by attorney Steve Osburn explaining why his client Mr. Roeder killed Dr. Tiller. "He killed Dr. Tiller because that was the only way to save the lives of the unborn. These were honestly held beliefs and he had no choice". [National Post 2010-01-29]
More correctly Roeder chose to act on that particular belief rather than not act on it or to change his belief.
No comments:
Post a Comment