How Do I Make the Right Choice?

It is a universally accepted principle that “the choices we make today determines our tomorrow.” But exactly how do I make the right choice today? If we could mnemonically tap into the minds and consciences of every human being alive today I am certain that this question will come out to be the single most asked question by any one person through any given day.

How do I make the right choice?

There are governing principles or value systems which we have been taught to uphold from the earliest years of our lives. Some use negative methods, while others constructive ones. But regardless of the method employed, the point is, we have been inculcated with a set of values and system of norms that are both universal and particular (borne out of family tradition). As we mature, we discover how that some of these values tend to contradict our very experiences. From such contradicting experiences we synthesize new mental models that govern our thought processes and actions. The resulting synthesis is not necessarily better than the thesis or antithesis from which we derived our new models, but it is a way for us to internally harmonize our lives despite the dissonance that reverberates between our system of values against the reality of daily experiences.

We develop a personal philosophy for survival. This philosophy may not necessarily be absolute in character, in fact it may very well consist of layers of contradicting practices and norms. Nevertheless we tend to minimize such contradictions in an effort to find the “silver lining” among the dark clouds that ominously looms in our horizon. We synthesize to harmonize.

Sure, we have absolute principles that we have been taught to live by that are incontestably important, but when push comes to shove, we tend to opt for the path that leads to harmonization. It seems that principle is only valuable when the results are favorable for the person making such a stand, but when that person becomes the object of the punitive end of principle, it is typical to expect one to reason “plausible deniability” if only to inoculate oneself from the negative consequences standing on absolute principle brings. It is at this juncture that we find much compromise occurring (anyone remember the tenets of Hegelian dialectics?)—better them than I or any of my family—the first instance only serving as a primer to a life filled with compromise until our system of though and living are so overwhelmed rendering us unable to distinguish whether our decisions are made for convenience or conviction.

Let’s take our political situation as an example…

The Filipino culture in general, values compromise over principled conviction. It is not uncommon for us to hear quips that “principle doesn’t bring food at the table” or “you can’t eat principle”. We put too much stock on “losing face” to the point that it wrong can be made right in relatively easy ways. This is for good reason. The prevailing system will explode should the new wine of principle be poured into the old wineskins of traditions of compromise.

How do you convince everyone to pay their actual taxes? How do you convince banks to make credit much more accessible to the public? How could any of the existing political parties convincingly argue that they could really eliminate corruption beyond reasonable doubt? Can any political supporter truly say to him or herself that his or her candidate is absolutely free and will remain absolutely free of corruption?

Even though there are those who are incorruptible, the general public simply considers them better at hiding whatever it is they purportedly hide. Does it mathematically compute how candidates can afford to invest hundreds of millions of pesos in a campaign for a post that pays less than a half a million pesos a year? Would you take a job that requires you to pay 1000% over what your employer will promise to pay? It simply does not compute.

What if these millions used for campaigning were instead used to actually demonstrate action rather than communicate, what everyone already knows are potentially empty promises? Is it because they could be construed to be buying votes? We have a system that prohibits any aspirant from actually doing what they said they would do but allow ludicrous amounts to be invested into a campaign of promises? Who really benefits? Certainly not the constituents who will tender their votes.

Just imagine if we had a system that allowed these funds to instead be used to back up credit facilities for SME’s? Wouldn’t that be a change. Where the criteria for making the list is raising so much capital to back up or underwrite credit facilities to realize real poverty alleviation. 250M PHP is definitely a substantial amount to help a huge number of entrepreneurs who have great ideas and skills but no access to capital facilities; 250M PHP will feed 25M hungry and homeless Filipinos for an entire day, help the millions who require medical assistance, or put up world-class neighborhood schools, daycares, or even improve the facilities of a minimum of 10 public schools. It can definitely pay for the education of the 625 brightest scholars to attend the most prestigious universities in the country, or 892 scholars to attend less prestigious universities, or 1250 scholars to attend the University of the Philippines. Now figure 250M times the number of political aspirants. To wit, this amount likely constitutes less than 50% of their overall campaign budget.

Something’s gotta give…I am sure I am not alone in thinking this way. The good thing about numbers is that 1 plus one will never end up as 4 or 20, but will absolutely be 2 in every instance. Somehow the political mathematical axiom is that a 455K PHP a year job that has limited tenure is worth investing over 500M PHP just to land the job.

Synthesis: A compromise not of intellect but of values. Sure there’s the political platform, but when we look into the aggregate amount it took a candidate to get elected into office, and the amount he or she has been able to add into the country’s GDP, one would be hard pressed to find acceptable returns on investment. But then again, we can look into the corporate machinery that funded these campaigns, and 250M PHP is a drop in the bucket compared to a 1000% ROI.

Another example of this contradiction is found in our personal values. Dualistic. This is how we have been conditioned to be as a people. We say we value family, but we would no sooner sacrifice breaking up a family if only to bring in dollars. We say we love our family, but the type of entertainment the masses embrace are those depicting violence, infidelity, chaos, compromise, depleted of principled conviction which purportedly forms our value system as a people. We say we are a hospitable and friendly people, but we would be willing to break up a friendship for less than two thousand pesos, and so on and so forth.

So how do we make the right choice?

No we come to another period of opining and theorizing. Voices to be heard in the “who’s who?” of society; voices loud and filled with promises which overwhelms the cries of the people for change to a slight whimper. It is interesting that the candidate who decided to stand on principle and run as an independent only because he does not want to violate personal principle, is now (at least according to the papers) unlikely to win. Is it because of coverage, or the lack of party support, or are my fellow citizens unable to value a principled man when they see one? This man in my view is not straddling the fence. He has made a stand—to stand on principled conviction. But then again, standing on principle can mean many different things to different people. In the minds of the many, he could be one that simply could not get along, or one that is left without an option but to remain an independent—it all depends on the political spins framed in sound-bytes that occupy the various communication frequencies of the land.

So how do we make the right choice when we intentionally deviate from the very values and absolutes that serve as the foundation for making the right choice as individuals? Does it all come down to best guess? A lesser-of-two-evils type of decision? Are we willing to render as credible the performance records of aspirants? Or do we view these objective metrics as malleable?

At the personal level…are we willing to live on the basis of principled conviction even when such a conviction will likely result in not being able to temporarily bring food on the table? Right choices are always wrapped in difficulty since right choices are narrow roads, single paths that are usually lonely and unpopular...often taken in single file.

So how do we make the right choice?

To ensure you make the right choice, you must first ask yourself if you are willing to personally live the right way despite the reality that the consequences of your decisions may not always be to your advantage, it may not always result in wealth or success, but at its worst may result in sheer adversity—sometimes requiring the ultimate sacrifice of life and limb.

He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.