“Doing the Right Thing”
The sense that guides our actions
The Sense of What’s Right Versus External Rules
“Doing the right thing” is understood as the subjective sense that guides us to “do the right thing” in a given situation, straight away and without relying on universal moral codes or social conventions.
It’s about that sense of what’s right, and it is not based on any external rules.
When someone stops telling themselves stories, what remains to guide their decisions? The sense that guides us to “do the right thing.”
When we make decisions, we usually rely on things such as a moral code, a religion, a social norm, “ethical” principles, cultural traditions, family customs, community standards, and laws. We use our mind to figure out what is “the right thing to do,” meaning we analyze these codes, traditions, customs to lead us to a decision.
But once you have dismantled the stories you tell yourself, you stop believing in those codes and customs as a guide. So what is left? The sense that tells you what is “the right thing to do.”
The sense that guides us to “do the right thing” determines how much effort a person is willing to make and, consequently, how much is left to chance.
This sense that tells you what is “the right thing to do” determines the amount of effort that you are willing to make – and the amount of effort you are willing to make determines how much is left to chance.
The Range of Efforts from Fatalism to “Doing Your Best”
The amount of effort, calibrated through this sense that guides us to “do the right thing,” lies between two extremes: fatalism (zero effort) on the one hand, meaning leaving everything to chance, and doing your best (maximum effort) on the other. Beyond this degree of effort, there is another level, mostly theoretical, fueled by the story of “at all costs.” This level of effort would lie beyond the actual maximum possible effort.
On one end of the spectrum, there is leaving everything to chance and making no effort, which we call “fatalism.” On the other end of the spectrum, we have “maximum effort,” meaning that we will make a great amount of effort, doing our absolute best and minimizing the influence of chance.
The “Story” of “At All Costs”
There is another level of effort we call “at all costs,” meaning that it is, somehow, more than the “maximum effort” we could do. But since we cannot do more than we can do – the phrase itself does not make sense – “at all costs” is theoretical. It is not realistic and it is a story – a distortion.
When we tell ourselves the story of “at all costs,” we become willing to use any means necessary to achieve our goal, without considering the effort, the personal risks, or the side effects of our actions.
When we enter into the story of “at all costs” we lose our minds a bit – we distort our view by embracing nonsense instead of what is possible. Everything else fades in importance and we become irrational, latching onto a twisted view of reality instead of what is feasible or sustainable.
For example, if my son had a heart condition, four different scenarios could arise:
1) Choosing not to proceed with the operation (no effort), leaving everything to chance, with a high risk that he dies.
This is “fatalism,” leaving everything in the situation to chance. Death is not certain but there is a high probability of it.
2) Proceeding with the operation, knowing there is a 50 percent chance of saving him.
Deciding to go ahead with the operation is making “some” effort, which includes paying for the operation and dealing with all the challenges associated with the procedure. Compared to the no-effort choice of “fatalism,” there is a better chance of survival and a lower chance of death.
3) Deciding on a heart transplant, which would, however, require illegally taking the heart of another child (killing them), with a 90 percent chance of saving our son (the maximum effort).
This requires doing everything that is humanly possible – ”maximum effort”: committing crimes like kidnapping and even murder that raise the odds of success.
4) Pointing a gun at the doctor’s head during the operation, threatening to kill him if he makes a mistake, under the false belief that this would increase the chance of success beyond 90 percent (beyond maximum effort/“at all costs”).
But this is stupid for many reasons, such as the fact that threatening the doctor might make the doctor stressed and less likely to succeed. “At all costs” is “going crazy.” Instead of considering what is feasible, we embrace nonsense, ignoring reason because we so desperately want a particular outcome.
In conclusion, we will think about what could happen – an exploratory phase – where we have a choice to make, and where we explore the possible consequences and implications: How will it be if our child lives? How will it be if our child dies? How will it be if another child has to die for our child to live? What if we threaten the doctor? We are thinking and imagining – we are exploring possibilities – to determine what we sense is the “right thing to do.”
We will eventually sense what the “right thing to do” is, and we will eventually choose an option. The choice we make will then determine the amount of effort we will have to make.
Someone acting according to the sense that guides us to “do the right thing” would probably opt for the second scenario: choosing to make some effort (going ahead with the operation) but refusing to accept the side effect of another child’s death to save their own son, because they no longer tell themselves the story that their son’s life is worth more than another’s.
The Sense of “Doing the Right Thing” Determines the Amount of Effort
What we sense “doing the right thing” is will determine the amount of effort we put forth and how much is left to chance. The amount of effort we make will be somewhere on the spectrum with “fatalism” at one end, leaving it entirely to chance, and “maximum effort” on the other end, leaving as little as possible to chance.
The previous example – unlike real life – takes into account only a small number of variables. Let’s take an even simpler example: if my son doesn’t receive a new heart, he will die. I have only two options – either I allow an unknown person to be killed so that my son can receive his heart, or I let my son die in order not to take the life of another person.
Now, let’s add another variable: what if, in order to save my son, I have to take the heart of a serial killer serving a life sentence? Would I be willing to do it? This new variable could alter the outcome – and it also makes us realize that our decisions often depend on external variables.
Let’s consider a second thought experiment: imagine someone is about to kill us, and the only way to save ourselves is to kill them. In such a case, few would hesitate to kill in self-defense. However, if we add more variables, things may become more complex – for example, what if the person about to kill me is my drunk son? Would I kill him to defend myself?
Once we dismantle the stories (such as “I must save my child’s life at all costs”), our decisions are no longer driven solely by the survival instinct – they are also shaped by a sense of doing the right thing: the sense of doing the right thing, which can be influenced by a wide range of variables, both conscious and unconscious ones.
If stories have been successfully removed (fatalism/“at all costs”), the person acts on his sense of doing the right thing in that moment, putting in as much effort as this sense allows for the situation, while choosing to leave the rest to chance.
What we sense “doing the right thing” is will determine how much effort we will make. In turn, this determines how much is left to chance.
It’s Okay to Be Selfish When You Are the One Who Needs Something the Most
“Doing the right thing” could also mean giving to the one who needs it most. If I am the one who needs it most, then I give to no one.
Therefore the idea of never being selfish makes no sense. It’s okay to be selfish: If you are the one who needs something the most, it’s okay not to give it away to somebody else.
When you need something more than another person does, and still that other person asks for it – knowing that you need it more than them – that person is exploiting you.
We can use what we sense is right to us as a criterion for decision-making, not only for major decisions but also for small, everyday ones.
The Limits of Logical Thinking
When we use logic to make a decision, we are only able to consider the information we know, not what we don’t know.
The information we know represents only a tiny proportion compared to the information we don’t know.
When we rely only on logic – and therefore only on the information we know–our entire line of reasoning is based only on the predictable consequences of our choices and actions.
Since the information we know represents only a tiny proportion compared to the information we don’t know, unpredictable consequences will carry far greater weight than predictable ones.
When we become aware of how little weight predictable consequences carry compared to unpredictable ones, we recognize the limits of logic. For this reason, it is important to incorporate into our logical reasoning the sense of what is right to us, bearing in mind that consequences are largely unpredictable.
We must be very careful not to confuse what we sense is right with the stories we tell ourselves. What we sense is right arises without logic or explanation. It is a bit like an intuition or a flash – something that we sense is obvious to us without our understanding why.
What we sense is right is always a choice or an action that relates to us, never information about other people. It is always about the action itself and never about the outcome.
What we sense is right is always conclusive about what the best course of action is; it is never the starting point of a logical reasoning that will then lead us to identify the best course of action.