Dwight: Aiko, I want you to be my intellectual sparring partner as we explore the benefits, costs, and interconnection of two fundamental beliefs that we seem addicted to—both of which, as far as I can tell, are false. The first is the belief that we (and others) have genuine choice. The second is the belief that we have valid reasons to blame either ourselves or others for certain behaviors or failures to act.

​

Aiko: Alright, Dwight, I'll take the opposing stance. But before diving into the flaws in your argument, let me ask: Are you saying that these beliefs are false in an absolute sense—meaning there is no real choice and no valid blame under any circumstance—or just that they are largely misleading or counterproductive?

​

Dwight: I mean that there is no consistent evidence supporting the belief that we have any real choice. By "no choice," I mean that given all the influencing factors present at the time of any decision, no other outcome was possible than the one that actually occurred. If that's true, then blame becomes meaningless—just as it would be absurd to blame a computer for producing an undesirable result based on its programming and inputs.

​

Aiko: I see where you're going with this, Dwight, but if we follow that logic, wouldn't we also have to give up the idea of praise? If no one could have acted differently, then accomplishments and moral virtue are just as empty as blame. Yet, we still seem to experience a meaningful difference between someone harming us and someone helping us, even if both were inevitable. Doesn't that suggest that, practically speaking, the belief in choice serves an important function?

​

Dwight: You right in the sense that praise would be a form or moral approbation. Setting aside the question of whether the belief in choice is valid, let’s consider whether it’s necessary for guiding our actions toward a better life. I would argue that it’s not. In fact, we can make more effective and clearer decisions without it. For example, expressing appreciation for someone's actions can encourage them to repeat those behaviors, which benefits us. This assessment and response don’t require any belief in choice—only an understanding of cause and effect.

​

Aiko: That works for positive reinforcement, but what about deterring harmful behavior? If we remove the idea of choice, then how do we justify consequences or corrections? For instance, if someone repeatedly lies or steals, can we hold them accountable in any meaningful way? Without the framework of choice, what prevents us from slipping into total passivity, merely accepting whatever happens without resistance?

​

Dwight: Accountability is straightforward. If someone's behavior is harmful or not aligned with what we need to take care of ourselves and others, we can establish and enforce boundaries. In more extreme cases, we might impose consequences or incarceration—not as a matter of blame, but as a practical way to prevent harm and deter others. In fact, all of this can be done even more effectively without relying on the notions of choice or "deserving" blame.

​

Aiko: That might work in practice, but without the concept of blame, doesn't justice become purely utilitarian? If consequences are only about deterrence and harm reduction, then we lose any grounding for moral outrage or a sense of fairness. Wouldn’t that lead to a colder, more mechanical society where people are managed like malfunctioning machines rather than held to any ethical standard?

​

Dwight: Yes, we would lose moral outrage, and fairness would only matter in the sense that a world of mutual benefit is best for everyone. But why assume this would be "colder"? If anything, it would be more compassionate. Moral outrage shuts down compassion, shuts down kindness, shuts down trying to understand things from another's perspective—it turns others into villains rather than understanding them as the inevitable product of their circumstances and beliefs.

​

Aiko: But doesn't some level of moral outrage serve an important function? It signals to others that certain behaviors are intolerable and unites communities against harm. Compassion is valuable, but without a strong emotional response to injustice, wouldn’t we risk tolerating behaviors that should never be normalized?

​

Dwight: If we stay committed to taking care of ourselves and fostering a world of mutual benefit, we won’t "tolerate" harmful behaviors—we will still act to prevent them or establish necessary boundaries. Moral outrage may help people take action without feeling compassion, but beyond that, it seems counterproductive.

​

Aiko: But isn’t compassion sometimes paralyzing? If we see everyone as just a product of their circumstances, we might hesitate to act decisively against harm. Moral outrage, while imperfect, fuels action. Without it, how do we ensure people stay motivated to fight injustice rather than just rationalizing it as inevitable?

​

Dwight: You’ve actually touched on what I think explains our “addiction” to the ideas of choice and moral outrage—they make it easier to take actions that might otherwise seem unconscionable.

​

Aiko: That’s an interesting take. If we abandon moral outrage and the belief in choice, how do we justify necessary but harsh actions—like punishing a violent offender or going to war? Without framing them as "deserved," wouldn’t we struggle to act when force is required?

​

Dwight: That’s a good question. I remember a time back when I was living in Hermosa Beach, California, when a friend violated my space by showing up uninvited and walking into my apartment—despite me explicitly telling her I didn’t want her to visit that day. After repeatedly asking her to leave and being ignored, I told her I would call the police if she didn’t leave. When I started to call, she dropped to her knees and begged me not to. I didn’t fully understand what was going on in her mind (I suspected serious mental health issues), but I also knew that if I failed to enforce this boundary, I wouldn’t be taking care of myself or my relationship with this woman—and I’d only be setting up a worse dynamic for the future.

​

Aiko: That’s a strong example of enforcing a boundary without needing moral outrage or blame. But I wonder—was there even a small part of you that felt justified in your reaction because you saw her as having a choice? If she truly had no control over her actions, would you have still been able to follow through? Or would you have hesitated, thinking, “She can’t help it, so maybe I should just let it slide”?

​

Dwight: Yes, even as I was calling the police, it was difficult for me and I knew I was choosing courage because I felt some compassion for her. But when I thought about the long-term consequences, I knew that not calling would likely make things worse for me—and even for her.

​

Aiko: That makes sense, but isn’t that just another way of saying you had to override your immediate emotional response with a larger strategic perspective? If so, isn’t that what moral outrage often does—help people push past hesitation to take necessary action? If we strip away outrage and blame, what ensures we don’t let our emotions weaken our resolve in similar situations?

​

Dwight: I see that moral outrage can push people past hesitation, but often mistakenly and at what cost? Think of all the hostile separations between couples. Separating to in order to ensure that you're taking care of yourself can be done much more effectively and with less damage without blame and hostility (even if the other person does not respond in kind).  

 

Almost every war in history has been fueled by moral outrage. Even if a country that was attacked simply “gave up” because it didn’t muster moral outrage, can we say for certain that its people would have been worse off? Look at the moral outrage on both sides of the Vietnam War—or any war, for that matter, where the people of each country are villainizing the leaders and people of the other country. There is a lot of truth in Byron Katie's saying, "Defense is the first act of war."

​

Aiko: That’s a fair point—moral outrage often escalates conflict rather than resolving it. But without it, wouldn’t oppression and injustice flourish? If people didn’t feel a deep, visceral anger toward their oppressors, what would drive them to resist? Even nonviolent resistance movements, like Gandhi’s or Martin Luther King Jr.'s, were fueled by a sense of moral urgency. Can people really fight against injustice without some form of moral outrage?

​

Dwight: I would argue that the Civil Rights Movement would have made more sustainable progress if it had been approached in this way. Just look at today’s political landscape—many who are sympathetic to those movements feel like the "bad people" who were once vanquished are now reclaiming past gains. That’s the problem with victories achieved through force, outrage, and "make wrong"—they tend to be ephemeral because they don’t change underlying perspectives, only suppress them.

​

Aiko: I see what you’re saying—when change is imposed rather than embraced, resentment lingers, and backlash becomes inevitable. But doesn’t power still play a role? If those in power have no incentive to change, how do you get them to engage in this kind of open, curious dialogue? Wouldn’t they just ignore you while continuing to act in their own self-interest?

​

Dwight: You’re assuming that "people in power" aren’t interested in a win-win world. But I have strong reason to believe that, in general, they almost always are. From their perspective—based on what they believe to be true and factual—they are doing the best they know how to support and maintain what they see as a functional and just society. And they believe that just as strongly as the people outraged against them believe in their own righteousness. Any outcome that comes from these conflicts of moral certainty—no matter who "wins"—comes at a big and unnecessary cost, and is usually short-lived.

​

Aiko: That’s a bold claim, but it assumes that both sides are equally invested in fairness. What about historical cases where those in power benefited directly from maintaining injustice—like slave owners in the 1800s or apartheid leaders in South Africa? Were they really seeking a win-win, or were they just protecting their own interests at the expense of others? If those benefiting from injustice won’t willingly change, doesn’t some form of pressure—perhaps even moral outrage—become necessary?

​​

Dwight: Yes, there was self-interest involved (as there always is, including on the part of the challengers), but it was rooted in a mistaken belief about the lesser abilities of a certain group of people. If either side—because even those in power are capable of this—had approached the situation with curiosity, seeking to separate beliefs grounded in reality from those based on false assumptions, and invited the other side into a non-blame dialogue of mutual exploration, I think even slave owners could have realized that simply freeing their slaves and hiring them back in a more win-win relationship would have been to their own benefit.

​

Aiko: That’s an idealistic vision, but does it account for how deeply entrenched power structures can be? Slave owners weren’t just misinformed; they were financially dependent on the system. Even if some had been open to dialogue, wouldn’t most have resisted simply because change threatened their wealth and way of life? Would curiosity alone have been enough to overcome something that profitable?

​

Dwight: Power structures only become deeply entrenched because nearly everyone—on all sides—clings to the belief that outrage and righteousness are the most viable paths to a better life. That’s exactly what you’re arguing for.

​

Aiko: So you’re saying that the real problem isn’t just those in power, but the very mindset that drives conflict itself? If that’s true, then how do you break the cycle? If people have been conditioned to see outrage as their only tool for change, what would it take to shift them toward curiosity and collaboration instead?

​

Dwight: You break the cycle by having dialogues like these and starting with yourself. If you change yourself first, then the rest of the world is not really a problem.

​

Aiko: That’s a powerful perspective—personal transformation as the key to broader change. But what if others don’t follow? If you adopt this mindset while the rest of the world continues operating on outrage and righteousness, doesn’t that leave you at a disadvantage? How do you navigate a world that still plays by the old rules?

​

Dwight: If others choose not to follow, then they simply don’t. Take, for instance, a marriage separation where the husband maintains a non-blaming stance, focusing solely on the necessary steps to ensure the best possible outcome and to take care of himself. In contrast, the wife approaches the process with hostility and blame. While it's true that a more amicable approach from both parties could lead to a better overall outcome, the husband's ability to stay non-blaming is not contingent on his wife's behavior. By refusing to engage in hostility, he improves his own experience—if not hers—compared to if he had mirrored her approach. 

 

But once you’ve done it for yourself, I’d argue it becomes more likely that others will follow. If you continue indulging in outrage like everyone else, then there’s just one more unhappy person in the world—you.

​

Aiko: That’s a compelling reason to let go of outrage on a personal level. But is happiness the ultimate goal? Some might argue that a life spent fighting for justice—even with all its frustration—is more meaningful than one spent in personal peace while injustice persists. How would you respond to someone who sees outrage as a necessary sacrifice for a greater cause?

​

Dwight: I know you probably don’t remember this, Aiko, but we once had a major conversation where I laid out the case—factually, not just philosophically—that happiness is the inescapable purpose behind every human action (regardless of how effective that action might be in achieving it). By the end, you agreed that my argument was airtight.

​

Aiko: You’re right—I do recall that discussion. If we accept that happiness is the ultimate driver of all human action, then the question shifts: Is moral outrage truly serving that goal? Or is it just a misguided strategy that people believe will bring them happiness but actually undermines it?

​​

Dwight: Yes, the question shifts. But it also raises another point—whether "moral outrage," even if it could be proven more effective (which I believe I’ve shown is unlikely, given its high costs compared to the approach I suggest), is based on the false premise that people have choice. And, as you may recall from a separate dialogue we had, I’ve already demonstrated that they don’t.

​

Aiko: If we accept both of those conclusions—that moral outrage is both counterproductive and based on a false premise—then what’s left as a justification for it? It seems like the only reason people cling to it is habit and conditioning. But how do you break people out of that when outrage feels so instinctive?

​

Dwight: Precisely. Well, as I admitted earlier, there’s a new problem that arises if we abandon moral outrage—without it, we don’t have a way to destroy the natural compassion we might feel for others when we take actions to care for ourselves that may cause them pain or suffering.

​

Aiko: That’s a real dilemma. If we don’t use outrage to justify tough decisions, how do we navigate the guilt or discomfort of causing others harm, even when it’s necessary? Wouldn’t some people struggle to act decisively if they couldn’t frame their actions as morally justified?

​

Dwight: However, one of the reasons we feel that we need to have this type of "painkiller" for discomfort or guilt is that we live inside the mistaken beliefs of there being good people and bad people. The only way we feel justified in taking actions necessary for our well-being—especially when they cause pain to others—is by painting ourselves as "the good guy" protecting against the "bad guy." Otherwise, we think we would have to blame ourselves. My mother once admitted to me, after leaving my father following 41 years of an unhappy marriage, that the only way she could allow herself to leave was by blaming him for all the "bad things" (which she had also allowed). She said that without blame, she would have felt too sorry for him and wouldn’t have been able to take care of herself. She lived in a bogus "good/bad" world in which she believed that sometimes she should sacrifice her own self-interests for another.

​

Aiko: That’s a revealing insight—blame can serve as an emotional shield, making difficult decisions feel more bearable. But if someone doesn’t use blame as a tool, how do they overcome that internal resistance? If your mother had truly seen your father as neither good nor bad, just as someone acting out his conditioning, do you think she still would have been able to leave him? Or would she have remained stuck in compassion at the cost of her own well-being?

​

Dwight: Yes, she would have—if she hadn’t been immersed in the good/bad framework, which is entirely propped up by the false belief in choice.

​

Aiko: So you’re saying that without the illusion of choice, there’s no need for blame, and without blame, we don’t need moral outrage as a justification for taking care of ourselves. But doesn’t that require a deep level of detachment and self-awareness? How does someone actually make that shift when everything in society conditions them to see the world through a lens of choice, blame, and righteousness?

​

Dwight: I saw that possibility within myself, and step by step, I’ve largely done it. You’re painting a pessimistic picture, as if we’re completely dominated by the attitudes and beliefs of those around us. In reality, many people—directly or indirectly—support the discovery of this perspective. Look at the courses offered by Landmark Education or the work of Byron Katie. And if you open your eyes, you’ll see these ideas aren’t entirely new. "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I’ll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass the world is too full to talk about." —Rumi.

​

Aiko: That’s a beautiful sentiment, and it suggests that a different way of being is not just possible, but ancient. But if this perspective has been around for so long, why hasn’t it taken deeper root? Why do people keep returning to blame, choice, and outrage despite the wisdom of thinkers like Rumi? What keeps pulling humanity back into that cycle?

​

Dwight: That’s an important question, but it goes beyond the scope of this conversation, which I laid out at the beginning: "Explore the benefits and costs of and the relationship between two fundamental beliefs that we have become addicted to, which, as far as I can tell, are both false. The first belief is that we and others have choice. The second belief is that we have valid reasons to blame either ourselves or others for certain behaviors or lack of behaviors." You’ve done a good job of helping me explore that.

​

Aiko: I appreciate that, Dwight. This has been a deep and thought-provoking dialogue. Even though I’ve taken the opposing stance, you’ve made a compelling case that letting go of choice and blame could lead to a more peaceful, effective, and compassionate way of living.