How Should I Think About My Opinion, In Three Easy Steps?

1. Are the facts correct? Saying that an aspirin will make your headache go away only makes sense if it is a fact that you have a headache.

2. Is the reasoning sound? Saying that an aspirin will make your headache go away because the word "aspirin" contains three vowels is not correct, even if the premise is correct.

3. Is it moral? If taking an aspirin for your headache will somehow kill one billion people, then perhaps it is time to reconsider your plan.

What is "Progressivism"?

Progressivism is, like many other mass movements, tribalist, and based lies, arrogance, hatred, and hypocrisy.

1. It rests on fabricated, though emotionally appealing narratives, in order to generate support. The world is heating up. White people are racist. Recycling cardboard boxes is beneficial. America "rushed" to war in Iraq. Women earn 59% of what men earn -- and, for good measure, this non-fact is attributed to "sexism". Worse, these narratives are arrogantly stated as axioms, and the burden falls on others to "disprove" them.

2. They arrogantly know what is best for you, and will make you pay for it. Public schools. Restrictions on commerce. Penalties and prohibitions against improving your property. They also rely very heavily on the guilt-generating illusion of attempting to help the "other". In other words, "How can you possibly enjoy 'X' when someone, anyone, else is suffering with 'Y'?" And their solution to this "problem" is to take your property and control your behavior.

3. Their "causes" are never in support of anyone; their causes are instead are based on who they hate and are intended to incite. Example: Their 1990s boycotts against South Africa were ostensibly to support the black victims of the apartheid system, but they displayed an utter disregard for the routine slaughters and famines elsewhere in Africa. Conclusion: Their real "cause" was hating white people. Example: They display hypersensitivity to the "plight" of the "Palestinian" people when Israel defends itself against their attacks -- but are indifferent to the far larger number of Palestinian Arabs who are murdered by other Arabs. Conclusion: Their real "cause" is hating Jews.

4. Philosophy and logic are absent, and are instead replaced by base-instinct universal "wants". For example, they want clean air -- as if anyone else wants dirty air. They want "peace", as if anyone (at least in the western world) wants senseless wars. They want "health care", as though anyone else wants to be sick. Even their "positions" are meaningless: Discrimination against gays was fine when one of theirs (President Clinton) signed the Defense of Marriage Act. And war was fine when he authorized (without Congressional approval) the bombing of a European country (Serbia) that was no threat to the United States -- and when he launched missiles at Iraq. Similarly, their objections to the budget deficit under President Bush vanished when said deficit was to become much larger under President Obama.

5. Their support rests on dependency. They create entitlements (actually, coercive government-enforced claims against others) that leave the "beneficiaries" dependent on oppressive government. The main progressive entitlement is welfare for old people; i.e., Social Security. But after being compelled to make "contributions" to this "fund" for their entire working lives, who would want to vote for dismantling it? Who would, after being compelled to pay for Medicare for year after year, would vote to deny themselves this "benefit" when it becomes their turn to collect? What parent, after paying years of real-estate taxes, would want to abolish "free" government schools and subsidized state colleges? And so progressivism oozes along, growing, and using democracy as a weapon to further itself.

What is "Racism"?

Aside from being used to demonize those with whom you disagree, so-called "racism" is a catch-all term that includes many different concepts. Here's a list that elaborates, bearing in mind that the word "race" itself is poorly defined (and, in our belief, does not exist at all).

1. Racism. This is the belief that there are innate and immutable biological differences that differentiate between all members of different races, and that these differences nearly classify races into different species. Usually, racism involves pseudo-scientific theories that reinforce the racist's beliefs.

2. Prejudice. This is pre-judging an individual based on their race, but without a basis in biological (or any other) theories. Unlike racists, they may not "know" why people of different races behave differently, and they may not care why they act differently, but they nevertheless perceive a difference -- and will act on it. It is also possible for a prejudiced person to change their assessment of individuals within a race once they get to know them. A true racist must be prejudiced, but a prejudiced person need not be a racist. Generally, this is more benign that racism.

3. Bigotry. With a foundation in racism and/or prejudice, the bigot's group is "best".

4. Visceral attraction/revulsion. This is the sense of certain aspects of races that vary in each individual, and that these aspects can be inherently good or bad. Examples include people on dating sites that exclude/include certain races because of some perceived inherent quality.

5. Utopian Racialism. This is the idea, endorsed by racists and the prejudiced, that coercive racial intervention by the state is required to achieve their idea of proper racial representation. Examples range from school and neighborhood "integration" to "affirmative action" to genocide.

6. Statistical Discrimination. This is a conscious decision to tentatively treat individuals in a certain manner because, lacking more detailed information, only group characteristics are available. It is different from prejudice because, unlike prejudice, it does not make assumptions about individuals. Instead, it says, "I do not know enough about you to make an intelligent assessment. So, for the time being, my optimal guess about you as an individual can only be based on generalizations about your group." It also says, "I prefer to (not) work/socialize with large numbers of people belonging to Group "X" because, on average, that group has been demonstrated to exhibit a certain type of behavior.

What Are Rights?

Rights are very confusing. Some people say that The Constitution defines their rights, others say that their rights are defined by God, and others say that they have a right to whatever they need.

Worse, there are all sorts of different rights that academics fight over: Claim rights, privilege rights, power rights, immunity rights, etc., etc. etc.

But here's one way of looking at rights that simplify matters: There are no rights.

Instead, consider a rights-free world where all behavior is constrained by obligations. Initially, that doesn't sound like too much fun; most people don't like being burdened with obligations. But negative obligations are not burdens.

For example, the "right to free speech" can be written as "other people are obligated to not interfere with your speech". Similarly, the government's right (or, if you prefer, power) to declare war can be thought of as "the citizens are obligated to respect the decision of Congress to declare war."

The advantage of this formulation is that it is easier to determine which actions ought to be rights. For example, the "right to healthcare" sounds like a fine idea, but listen to how it sounds when it is rewritten: "Other people are obligated to provide you with healthcare." Now it doesn't sound as good.

Of course, there are still ambiguities, such as the "right to clean air". Does that mean that other people are obligated to provide you with clean air? Or does it mean that other people are obligated to not dirty your air? And that doesn't address your obligation to not interfere in other people's affairs (like operating factories) that do not directly affect you.

So, we aren't left with a simple answer to everything, but "obligations" vastly simplifies the confusing vernacular of "rights", and it also helps us better determine what sort of behaviors are permissible.

What Is The Basis Of Morality?

This is an update of an earlier post.

It's still incomplete, but here are ten items that can define a philosophical basis of morality:

1. Utilitarianism (The most people the most happy; e.g., democracy) vs. Individual rights

2. Free will (You have the ability to make choices) vs. Determinism (Your choices are predetermined by your biology)

3. Violence vs. Nonviolence

4. Absolutism (Truth is universal) vs. Relativism (All views are equally valid)

5. Absolutism (Truth is universal) vs. Contextualism (Truth can be dependent on context.)

6. Skepticism (All claims must be backed by proof) vs. Faith (Claims can be accepted unless proven wrong)

7. Individualism (Only individuals have rights) vs. Collectivism (Only groups of people have rights)

8. Cooperation (Agreement and collusion) vs. Defection (Disagreement and competition)

9. Liberalism (Individual responsibility) vs. Paternalism (Forced guidance by others)

10. Equality (All outcomes must be the same) vs. Equity (All opportunity must be the same)

Is Wealth Acquired by Accident?

Is Wealth Acquired by Luck?

It is an accident that you just happened to be born to parents with the means to provide for you. And it is also by luck that you happened to be born in a country that permits you to get a decent job. And it is also your luck that you were not born in the 15th Century. And, for that matter, it was also a winning gamble that you were not born with a debilitating birth defect.

Further, you are lucky to have inherited characteristics that have enabled you to become wealthy -- whether it's a superior physical ability or a high IQ. And, perhaps your parents used those lucky genetic traits to accumulate wealth to pass to you in the form of an inheritance.

And it could be pure luck that enables you to have the patience and diligence to perform difficult, tiresome, and tedious work -- the sort of work that might make you wealthy.

But...you are, by definition, who you are. You are no more lucky that you were born rich than you are lucky that you weren't born a cockroach. There was never any chance that you would have been born a cockroach, and there was never any chance that you would have been born anything than what you are. If you were born as someone different, then "you" would not be "you".

So, what does all this mean? What are the implications? What is the "therefore..."?

Would it therefore be correct to say that "the implication is that wealth is not really earned, and should therefore be distributed to those who are less well-off?"

If the answer is "yes, my wealth is unearned and should be given to others", then you should give all your money to cockroaches. And maybe you should give your money to plants and bacteria as well.

Or, if you prefer to give to your own species (and why would you?), then your every last "lucky" penny could be transferred to the unlucky poor around the world. You would then be brought down to their absolute poverty, and they would not notice any change in their living standards. Ten million dollars is enough to give a penny to one billion poor people.

In the end, we would have one billion and one poor people.

Unless, of course, all the lucky people in the rich countries were forced to turn over everything they have to the folks in Burundi and Malawi. That way, everyone in the world can be unlucky. Problem solved.

Are Slavery Reparations a Smart Idea?

Are slavery reparations a smart idea?

No.

1. Some people (who happened to white) enslaved others (who happened to be black). How does this lead to, generations later, other people (who happen to be black) having a claim on the money of other people (who happen to be white)?

2. Having a claim on someone's money is the same as having a claim on the work they did to produce value. That is, reparations are also slavery. Therefore, legitimizing reparations is identical to legitimizing slavery. But if slavery is legitimized, then by what basis can anyone claim a right to the slavery known as "reparations" -- other than "you have something, so I'm taking it"?

For argument's sake, let's accept the fiction that white people's wealth (including white people who recently migrated to the USA) is somehow related to the slavery of black people many generations ago -- and that black people (even if they do not have American ancestry) have a claim on all white people:

3. If blacks have a claim on whites, then it's a safe assumption that Jews have a claim on Germans. But blacks also have a claim on (white) American Jews. So, would it be efficient to simply bypass the Jews and have Germans pay American blacks directly? Or do Jews have a bigger claim on Germans than blacks have on Jews? How does one calculate this?

4. Care to sort out the Balkans to figure out who owes what to whom?

5. Exactly how does one calculate the amount to be turned over, even in relatively clear cases? It would require the rewriting of history to estimate, among many possible outcomes, what would have happened if slavery had not occurred. Would American blacks otherwise be affluent? Or would there be no American blacks, as their ancestors would have been left in Africa?

And now, let's assume that we do have the ability to develop alternative outcomes, had slavery not happened:

6. The American enslavement of blacks, as we learned above, was not unique. Throughout history, each group had its turn to enslave (and murder) people in other groups. At which point do we rewrite history? At the start of American slavery? Or when man began to walk upright? Or in 1970? The selection of a start date changes everything, as the enslaved of yesterday might have been the slave owners on the day before.

Conclusion: Any group, any injustice, and any date can be selected to justify a claim of some people on others. If you go in with your mind made up that people in some category should take things from people in a different category, then it is a simple matter to choose your favorite history to justify anything.

Can Slavery Be A Good Thing?

Yes it can.

In fact, when slavery is beneficial, it goes by the term "taxes." Of course, all taxes are harmful in some way, but they might be the best option in certain cases, such as with the provision of public goods like defense, pollution control devices, etc. In theory, private armies and police forces might be a pretty good idea, but we don't know for sure -- as empirical evidence is lacking.

Regardless, taxes are still slavery. How so? Well, it's easier to see in a barter system. Say that your job is trading apples. And whenever you trade two apples for other items, a bully comes along and forces you (with threats of violence) to give one apple to him without getting anything in exchange. Now, the bully can eat the apple or give it to someone else, but regardless, he forced you to produce an apple and hand it over. He forced you to work for his benefit. That is slavery.

If it happens that he gives your apple to someone who is not as affluent as you, then you are a slave who is indirectly working for a less-affluent master. And yet, this bothers relatively few people. In fact, the tangible benefits of slavery are often subordinate to the high morality of this sort of slavery. Redistributing apples is considered a valuable end in itself.

Which makes on wonder: Why does anyone object to slavery?

Once again, the answer has nothing to do with "freedom" or "rights" or any similar lofty abstraction. Instead, it once again comes down to envy. Slavery is considered bad if the slave masters are more affluent than the slaves -- but slavery is considered highly moral when the slave masters are less affluent than the slaves.

To summarize: Slavery can be a good thing under some circumstances -- and there will be no objection if it feeds into envy as well. Which, among other things, explains why modern-day slavery (taxation) is as popular as it is.

Does Determinism Have Internal Contradictions?

Yes, it has a major one.

If we accept the premise of determinism that everything has a cause, then it follows that every cause has a cause. That is, if the cause of my buying a green shirt instead of a yellow shirt is a very complex "equation" that uses biological inputs to return "green shirt", then what was the cause of those biological inputs? My parents genes? And what was the cause of that? And what was the prior preceding cause. And then the cause before that, and the cause before that, ad infinitum.

To continue in Latin, we end up with the reductio ad absurdum conclusion that we can never find the "real" cause because there must always be a prior cause. In other words, if everything has a cause, then nothing has a cause.

But in practice, a determinist will generally stop at a (highly speculative) biological level as the "real" cause. That seems like an arbitrary point in the cause-and-effect process, though. Why not choose an observable point in the process; e.g., the point at which you might say, "I can buy green or yellow -- and though it hardly matters to me, I will choose the green shirt."

Do Trial Lawyers Have Morals?

The ones who only take cases of innocent clients might have morals; the others do not.

The purpose of a trial-by-jury is to protect the innocent, and not to protect the guilty. So, if someone is guilty (of an unambiguous crime like rape or murder), and their lawyer knows it, then a moral lawyer ought to refuse to take the case. Of course, lawyers need to earn money, which explains why they defend (and lie to defend) the guilty. But when lawyers knowingly attempt to persuade juries to free violent criminals, then it can hardly be considered "moral" if the reason is to make money.

Similarly, when trial lawyers attempt to have the courts punish innocent parties (like, say, McDonalds for allegedly making people fat, or drug companies for producing drugs with negligible side effects), then they are also without any morals.

The fact that lawyers often become very affluent by winning these cases does not make them less moral. If they did it "pro bono", they would be no better. In fact, it's the legal system itself that provides the incentives for unscrupulous lawyers to behave in such a depraved way. But still, lawyers do have the ability to turn down cases; they can make choices as well as anyone else.

Should I Die for My Country?

This is a timely question, given the recent conduct of the kidnapped British sailors who immediately cooperated with, and allowed themselves to be humiliated by, their Iranian captors.

Anyway, most people would probably be ashamed to say anything other than "yes" to this question -- or at least they would say that they would die for their country under the right conditions.

But consider this question: How many people would unhesitatingly drown themselves so that some strangers can stay alive in the proverbial lifeboat? What's the difference between the two situations?

Maybe the lifeboat question should have several similar versions:

Version 1: Would you drown yourself to save six strangers on a boat that sprung a leak?

Version 2: Would you drown yourself to save six countrymen on a boat that was being attacked by a foreign country?

Version 3: Would you drown yourself to save six countrymen from the foreign ship if you could also kill the attackers on that ship?

The likelihood of a "yes" answer (and a "yes" action) would no doubt increase from Version 1 to Version 3.

So: What are the differences between the three versions? There are two:

1. The number of lives saved increases from six to an ambiguous future number if the enemy is attacked.

2. A collective is being saved.

Of the above two differences, the second is probably more influential. One way of seeing that is to pretend that you are sitting in front of three buttons, each of which will instantly kill you if pressed.

Button #1 says: "Push me to save six people, somewhere in the world, from being killed today."

Button #2 says: "Push me to save six of your people who are about to be killed by your group's enemies."

Button #3 says: "The future of your people is at stake. Push me to save six of them AND to kill those who are about to kill them."

In the emotionless confines of a room with buttons, and with the anonymity of the decision, it seems unlikely that any button would be pressed. But Button #1 would probably receive the fewest presses.

So, here are the conclusions:

A) Your group's "life" can be more important that your own life; it's the threatened group that matters, not the threatened individuals.

B) The actual number of people you save is probably not important. (Replace the six people with six hundred people, and see if it makes any difference.)

C) People who value their own lives more than anything else ought to be grateful that there are others who are willing to sacrifice.

D) People who are willing to sacrifice for their group ought to be grateful that there are others who place their own lives first. (Would you want to see cancer researchers enlist for front-line duty?)

E) If you voluntarily took an oath to defend your country, and you cooperate with the enemy and not even apologize for it afterwards, then you probably have very little group allegiance -- but more importantly, you are also a disgraceful fraud.

Is Abortion Murder?

For argument's sake, let's say, "Yes, abortion is murder. A fetus, from the moment of conception, is a human being, and to destroy it is therefore murder."

Then it follows that...

- The aborting mother should face the death penalty, or at a minimum, life imprisonment. We're talking pre-meditated, first-degree murder here.

- Any parental restrictions on the child's behavior after birth is slavery. There should be no cribs, no gates, no rules. If your new-born wants Jack Daniels in his bottle, you had better respect those wishes.

- Come to think of it, if your new baby threatens to cry if you don't feed him Jack Daniels, then you can sue him for intimidation and psychic damage.

- And if the fetus has been difficult, then a lawyer will be waiting to pounce on him as he emerges into the rest of the world.

- Since the fetus is being singled out because it is a fetus, then it probably deserves some hate-crime protections as well.

- If discarding a four-cell embryo is murder, then what can be said of killing cows, pigs, and sheep? (A four-cell embryo is much less developed than an earthworm, let alone more advanced mammals.) A new vegetarianism awaits.

Are Some People Poor Because Other People Are Rich?

"In a world in which more than a billion people struggle to survive on the purchasing-power equivalent of less than $1 a day, there has to be a serious moral doubt about whether anyone should be a billionaire."

- Peter Singer, "Bioethics Professor" at Princeton University, quoted in the L.A. Times, 3/18/07

If you bought a typical house for $100,000 and spent much effort improving it so that it is now worth $200,000, did you make anyone poorer? Would you have a serious moral doubt about the new value of your house? Should your neighbors now be entitled to payments from you? If you answer "yes", then how would that have affected your decision to improve your property to begin with?

If this house happened to be in a neighborhood that, by luck, happened to become very desirable -- and increased its value to $1,000,000, would you then have serious moral doubts about the value of your property? Should you now be sending payments to people in other neighborhoods? If you answer "yes", then how would that affect the desirability of buying houses in areas with potential to improve?

Replace "houses" with "businesses" or "stocks", increase the values, and you have billionaires. How has Bill Gates' ownership of Microsoft stock made anyone else poorer? And by what moral principle should he be obliged to send payments to other people?

To rephrase Professor Singer's insight:

"In a city where many people live in public housing, there has to be serious doubt about whether anyone should own a house."

"In a city where many people use public transportation, there has to be serious doubt about whether anyone should own a car."

"In a city where many people are miserable, there has to be serious doubt about whether anyone should be happy."

Does Milk Go Bad at Exactly Midnight of The Expiration Date?

Or, if you prefer, here are similar questions:

- Are people suddenly responsible enough to drink at midnight of their 21st birthday?

- Does driving become much more dangerous at 65.001 mph?

- Are you obese if your BMI is 30.0, but not if your BMI is 29.999?

These specific definitions are intended to address the problem of vagueness by pretending that there is precision where there is none. They're forms of the continuum fallacy, which is illustrated by trying to figure out how many grains of sand it takes to make a sand pile. If you have a some sand that is smaller than a sand pile, adding one grain will never convert it to a "pile". But that implies that achieving a sand pile is impossible if you only add one grain at a time.

So, how can vagueness be addressed? Or, more accurately, how can vagueness be managed? Mathematically, it cannot be addressed; it will remain a paradox.

A) Minimize one error, and ignore the other -- which seems to be the usual solution. That is, set an expiration date that will ensure that only 5% of milk will go bad -- and accept the negative consequence that lots of otherwise good milk will be discarded. Or, set a speed limit that will reduce fatal accidents to 5% of unrestricted speed fatalities, and accept that many people will pay the price of wasting lots of time by driving too slow. There's nothing magic about 5% in these cases; in fact, one would have to need to balance the two types of error to find the "correct" solution. But as long as the solution is "one size fits all", there will be inefficiencies and equity concerns. ("Why should that inept person be allowed a drivers license when it is denied to me because I am under the cutoff age? I'm a better driver; I should be driving him!")

B) Redefine these terms to have more categories; i.e. milk can have a "fresh" date, a "probably fresh" date, a "little curdling" date, and a "foul" date. This provides more useful information, though it can be unnecessarily confusing. Also, it does not address the vagueness issue because each of these new categories would be defined by artificially precise dates.

C) Assign probabilities to freshness; i.e., develop a thermometer-like scale from 0% freshness to 100% freshness. However, this doesn't address the problem; it ignores it. By analogy, this would be like replacing the vague word "fever" with only a numerical gauge.

D) Evaluate every product and person individually. This addresses equity issues, but not vagueness. That is, it doesn't explain exactly when someone becomes obese or bald.

E) Use plain-English and common-sense intuition to either override or complement numerical data and express the evaluation in plain English. Milk sitting at room temperature, someone driving 75 mph with no traffic nearby, and a psychopath 35-year old reaching for a case of beer are all examples of where unanticipated factors invalidate the original "rules" and would make us say, respectively, that the milk might be getting old, that there is minimal added danger in driving faster, and that the psychopath should probably not drink too much, regardless of age. It's related to fuzzy logic, and though it doesn't resolve the vagueness paradox, it does help solve the problem.

What is the Philosophical Basis of the Leftist/Communist/Socialist Movement?

As the graph shows, the most defining features are Groupism, Paternalism, and Equality (all outcomes should be the same for everyone, regardless of merit, regardless of free choice, etc). This should be no surprise, as their rhetoric is heavily concentrated with talk of the "community", "taking care of everyone", and "equality". The ideas of Individualism, Equity (you get what others feel you are worth), and Liberalism ("live and let live") are poison.

Its appeal is the satisfaction of envy and selective morality. No one will ever be better-off than you, and no one will be better-off than anyone else. For many people, this matters more than material wealth or the sense of individual freedom and responsibility. And by ignoring those who are harmed by such a philosophy, you can feel a surge of morality as you sense that you are helping those beneath you; i.e., the "other".

As such, relativism is more important that absolutism; i.e., the very definition of "envy" is based on relativism.

Consequentialism is also important. Nominally, communism/socialism (and similar left-wing causes) are the means towards establishing a goal. However, there is little evidence that this ambiguous "goal" is important -- and from all appearances, socialism is much less of a process than being an end in itself. Therefore, these movements are basically consequentialist.

Most other philosophical components are in between. Most visibly, "enemies" (capitalists, Republicans, etc.) have the free will to do evil, but ordinary criminals and terrorists are deterministically reactive and cannot control their behavior.

And although there is a huge emotional component (especially envy), these movements are not without reason. Their leaders, for instance, are perfectly capable of developing calculations to increase their power and economic gain by inciting their followers.

Their strategies are also a mixture of fighting (e.g., labor unions) and cooperating (politicians). Whatever works.

And finally, they are quite certain of what they want; there is no room for skepticism in any mass movement.

In summary: Left-wing adherents seem to be driven by emotional fulfillment from:

A) Envy

B) Envy-by-Proxy

C) Paternalism

D) Selective morality

What are the main components of any philosophy?

A) Consequentialism <----> Deontology

Do the ends justify the means?

B) Free Will <----> Determinism

Do people have the ability to make choices?

C) Reason <----> Emotion

Are the rules of formal logic being followed, or are human emotions providing guidance?

D) Relativism <----> Absolutism

What should things be measured against: Absolute standards or relative standards?

E) Skepticism <----> Certitude

At what point do the questions end?

F) Individualism <----> Groupism

How much influence should the group have on an individual?

G) Cooperation <----> Fighting

When conflict arises, which is the better strategy: To negotiate/cooperate or to compete/defeat?

H) Liberalism <----> Paternalism

To what extent should anyone have control over others?

The above eight factors are fairly -- though not completely -- independent of each other.

And knowing these factors can help you assess how others think.

For example, anyone in a mass movement will score to the right side of factors "E", "F", and "H". And to a lesser extent, they will be to the right on "C". But beyond that, "A", "B", "D", and "G" can vary. For instance, environmentalists will be to the right of "A", and political parties will be to the left. Similarly, Christians would be to the left of "B" and criminal apologists would be to the right.

Any group based on envy, like, say, communists, will be to the left of "D" -- and any group wishing to demonize historical figures ("Jefferson had slaves") will be to the right of "D".

Finally, "G" is basically a subset of "A", since it is concerned with the means of achieving a goal -- and most groups will be somewhere in the middle, depending on the situation. However, some are always at extremes.

Are there other philosophical components?

Which is More Useful: Empirical Data or Human Judgment?

Let's say you're a physician and you prescribe a medication to a patient. This medication has known side effects, but the patient reports a side-effect that seems impossible to ascribe to the medication.

Which would you initially feel more comfortable believing:

A) The patient is reporting a symptom unrelated to the medication (your bias: empirical data), or

B) The patient is suffering from a heretofore-unknown side effect (your bias: human judgment).

Now let's say that you just charted a driving route with a mapping program, and a person familiar with the area sees the computer-generated route, and says, "I drive around there all the time and know of a faster route."

Which would you initially feel more comfortable believing:

A) The program, using mathematical algorithms free of human bias, is correct (your bias: empirical data), or

B) The person, with knowledge that the computer doesn't have, is correct (your bias: human judgment).

In both cases, the empirical data derived from the agglomeration of large quantities of data and objective measurements is free of human biases; e.g., the patient might be a hypochondriac, and your motoring friend might be avoiding the best route because of one or two bad experiences.

But...in both cases, the empirical data was also generated by humans -- humans who can easily overlook critical factors when assembling data. And the empirical data was processed by a quick-calculating, but nevertheless very dumb, piece of electronic equipment that cannot consider any factors beyond what humans fed it.

So, the answer is: There is no simple answer; just consider the quality of your sources.

Which is More Important: The Means or The Ends?

It depends.

Absolutists who say means are the only thing that matters (deontologists) can be found moralizing about how "wars, regardless of their aims, are always wrong, if even a single innocent person is killed."

Absolutists who say that the ends, or outcomes, are what matters (consequentialists) can be found moralizing about how "equality of wealth must be achieved, regardless of how much the rich are taxed."

Very often, the same people can be both absolute deontologists and consequentialists in the space of two sentences, as illustrated above. These people can fluidly go back and forth between philosophical poles in order to rationalize their predetermined conclusions.

In the first example, it would be interesting to ask the question, "Can a single person be killed if it can be demonstrated that one billion could be saved by such an action?"

In the second example, it would interesting to ask the question, "Would it be desirable to annihilate all but the poorest people in order to achieve equality?"

To be ideologically consistent in each case, while remaining indifferently oblivious to their own internal inconsistencies, they might very well answer "Yes" to both questions.

Do People Have Free Will to Make Choices?

Yes.

Granted, on a very low level -- maybe the molecular level -- all inputs into our brains might be transformed into deterministic outcomes. That is: It's certainly plausible that, because we are mobile bags of chemicals, our behavior can be predicted by a ridiculously complex mathematical model that no man nor machine can come close to comprehending.

So, in the most strict biological sense, your wavering between picking the Dr.Pepper or the Mountain Dew might be a "programmed" response comprised of quazillions of miniscule electrical charges and other teencie-weencie microscopic activities that you have no "control" over. In short, some people would say that every event must have some cause -- and that the bio-physical chain of events only gives us an illusion of choice.

All of which is irrelevant to the question.

When you are looking at, say, someone's face, you are seeing what they look like -- and your assessment of the face is based on the composition, expression, coloring, shape, and whatever else. Never mind that what you are really looking at are millions and millions of cells and chemicals and atoms and so forth -- which, when combined on a massive scale, only gives us the illusion of a face. A car's steering wheel doesn't actually turn the wheels; it instead triggers a chain of actions that give the illusion that the steering wheel is turning the wheels. But... you can recognize faces, and steer cars -- even if you don't understand how you got to that point.

You see where this is going.

When confronted with a choice between two beverages, the deterministic bio-physical components (if any), when summed, enable us to select either drink. Similarly, a pitcher and the hitter, trying to outguess each other, are actively making choices. If you've read this far, that was your decision to read.

The fact that no one understands how choices are made at the lowest levels doesn't matter. (Low-level brain activity is all speculation anyway, and no one even claims to understand the process -- if there is one.) Everyone who isn't brain-damaged can make choices. Maybe they make stupid choices, maybe they make seemingly irrational choices, but they can all make choices. Under the right circumstances, with the right incentives, everyone is capable of saying, "I'll take the Mountain Dew".