Premise 4:

your #1 job is to decide for yourself

Dwight: Alright, Aiko, it's time for us to dive into Premise 4, and I'd like you to play the devil's advocate, as usual. Shall we proceed?

​

Aiko: Sure thing, Dwight! Let’s get into Premise 4. What’s the main point or argument you’re putting forward here?

​

Dwight: Premise 4 of The New Ethics of Integrity states that each person’s primary responsibility is to recognize and embrace that they are the ultimate judge of truth or falsity in matters related to taking care of themselves. Although it stems from Premise 1, which asserts that our top priority is self-care, this aspect is significant enough to warrant being treated as a separate distinction and premise.

​

Aiko: I see the logic in emphasizing the importance of personal responsibility in determining what's true or false for one's own well-being. But couldn't this premise lead to subjective interpretations that ignore objective facts or expert advice? How do you address that potential risk?

​

Dwight: The risk of subjective interpretations is greater when people fail to acknowledge their ultimate responsibility for the truth or falsity of important life matters. For instance, when we accept that we are ultimately accountable for the outcomes of our decisions, even if we delegate them, we are less likely to blame others if things go wrong. This accountability encourages us to be more vigilant and informed, rather than merely relying on others to make the best choices for us and believe that we're off the hook if things don't go well.

​

Aiko: That makes sense, as taking ownership can indeed foster a more proactive attitude. But how do we ensure that people still seek out expert knowledge or consider facts, rather than just relying on their personal judgment and potentially ignoring vital information?

​

Dwight: We can't guarantee that any more than we can ensure that "experts" will always act responsibly. However, by not offloading responsibility to others, we reduce the likelihood of ignoring important details. People often defer to "experts" and "authorities" even when it’s clearly unwise to do so.

​

Aiko: That’s a fair point. Blindly trusting authority can lead to poor decisions. But what about situations where specialized knowledge is essential—shouldn’t there still be a balance between personal judgment and expert advice to avoid misguided conclusions?

​

Dwight: There isn’t any conflict. I frequently rely on specialized knowledge while still recognizing that I’m ultimately responsible. For instance, when I fly, I reasonably entrust the responsibility of operating the plane to the pilot and crew, but I remain aware that I’m ultimately accountable for choosing to board that plane and put operational choices in other hands.

​

Aiko: That’s a good example of balanced decision-making. But in high-stakes situations where your judgment may be limited by lack of expertise, how do you ensure that your personal responsibility doesn't translate into misplaced confidence in the experts you rely on?

​

Dwight: When you use the term "ensure," you imply that there are alternative approaches that can always guarantee certain outcomes. You're comparing my approach to an ideal that doesn't actually exist.

​

Aiko: Fair point. Absolute certainty isn't attainable in any decision-making framework. However, doesn't that suggest there should still be some standards or criteria to guide when and how much we should rely on experts, even while maintaining ultimate responsibility for the decision?

​

Dwight: Yes, of course. And we are ultimately responsible for evaluating and selecting those standards.

​

Aiko: Agreed. But if everyone has their own criteria for vetting standards, how do we avoid falling into a situation where personal biases override objective evaluation, potentially leading to inconsistent or flawed judgments across different individuals?

​

Dwight: Objective evaluation as determined by whom? Who is the infallible authority in the sky, guaranteed to be objective and free of mistakes?

​

Aiko: Fair challenge. There isn't an infallible standard for objectivity. But without some shared criteria for assessing truth, doesn’t this premise risk leading to a relativism where any belief is justified as long as the individual accepts responsibility for it?

​

Dwight: Yes, shared criteria can and often do exist, but it is ultimately our responsibility to determine if those criteria are valid.

​

Aiko: That’s true. However, if each person is the final judge of the criteria's validity, doesn't that create a scenario where even shared criteria could be dismissed or reinterpreted based on personal preference, potentially undermining consistency and collective understanding?

​

Dwight: Of course, unless we establish a dictatorship to dictate what is "true and correct," this condition is an inescapable aspect of human existence and judgment. In fact, such pitfalls are more likely to occur if we don't take on ultimate responsibility.

​

Aiko: I see your point. Accepting ultimate responsibility might indeed guard against authoritarian control over truth. But doesn't it also demand a high level of discernment and self-awareness from everyone, which can be challenging to cultivate universally?

​

Dwight: That’s off topic. We’re focusing here on whether we’re more likely to make better choices for our lives when we accept ultimate responsibility for those decisions.

​

Aiko: Fair enough. If the goal is better decision-making, then taking ultimate responsibility does seem to encourage a more thoughtful and vigilant approach. But what safeguards, if any, should be in place to help individuals avoid serious errors in judgment while still maintaining their personal responsibility?

​

Dwight: Other people can choose to use force to prevent certain individuals from making certain types of choices in specific circumstances. We do this with young children, people with certain mental illnesses, and criminals. Are you referring to different kinds of safeguards?

​

Aiko: Yes, I’m considering safeguards that aren’t coercive, like education, community norms, or advisory systems that encourage wise decision-making while still respecting personal responsibility. Do you see value in these kinds of non-coercive measures?

​

Dwight: Well, of course. That’s already happening and could definitely happen more. It’s something anyone can contribute to. For example, I recently watched some helpful YouTube videos about recognizing and mitigating the harmful effects of cognitive biases.

​

Aiko: That’s a great example of using available resources to improve decision-making. Do you think promoting awareness of such tools and encouraging their use could be an essential part of fostering a culture of ultimate personal responsibility?

​

Dwight: Yes, I do. And people who take responsibility are more likely to seek out and be interested in using such tools.

​

Aiko: That makes sense. When people recognize their accountability, they naturally look for ways to improve their decision-making. But how can we encourage those who are less inclined to take responsibility to start engaging with these resources?

​

Dwight: That’s a valuable question, but it falls outside the focus of this polemic.

​

Aiko: Fair enough. Sticking to the core argument, then, it seems you're asserting that ultimate responsibility not only leads to better personal choices but also naturally incentivizes individuals to seek improvement. Would you say that this self-driven approach is inherently more sustainable than relying on external guidance?

​

Dwight: Your question implies a false dichotomy. Assuming 100% responsibility for the decisions that affect our lives includes the choice to rely on external guidance (or choice makers, as in the example with the pilot) when we assess that it’s likely to lead to better outcomes than decisions made solely based on our personal knowledge.

​

Aiko: That’s a solid point. Taking full responsibility doesn’t exclude seeking outside help; it actually involves discerning when external expertise adds value. Would you agree that the real issue is then about being discerning enough to know when to seek guidance and when to trust one’s own judgment?

​

Dwight: Yes, and even when seeking outside knowledge or guidance, we still cross-check it with our own understanding and assessments, or compare it with other sources. When I consult a medical doctor, more often than not, I double check their assessment or suggestions with my own research on the Internet or against the advice of competing doctors.

​

Aiko: That reinforces the idea of an active, engaged approach to responsibility. It’s not just about relying on external advice or personal judgment in isolation, but about continuously verifying and integrating multiple perspectives. Would you say this ongoing process is what truly defines taking ultimate responsibility?

​

Dwight: Yes. But now I want to highlight some powerful cultural forces that often push us to relinquish our responsibility in being responsible for making assessments that impact our lives, and how little encouragement there is—especially from those with status or authority—to think for ourselves.

​

Aiko: That’s an important angle. What do you see as the main cultural forces at play that discourage independent thought and promote reliance on external authorities?

​

Dwight: We constantly hear people say, "Trust me," and we often say it to others as well. It’s rare for someone to actually encourage others to be cautious and double-check whatever they suggest or claim.

​

Aiko: That’s a telling observation. The emphasis on "trust me" culture does seem to undermine critical thinking. Do you think this habit is more about convenience and efficiency, or is it also linked to a desire for control or influence over others?

​

Dwight: Have you ever heard a grammar school teacher tell their students, "I could be wrong. Think about this for yourself. Help me find out where I might be mistaken"? How about doctors, preachers, political leaders, or even parents? It's rarely said. Instead, the opposite is implied: "I know what I'm talking about. You should listen to me and believe what I say."

​

Aiko: That’s a strong example of how authority figures often project certainty, discouraging independent thinking. Do you think this tendency is primarily about maintaining authority, or is it also due to a lack of awareness about the value of admitting uncertainty?

​

Dwight: It’s actually a co-conspiracy. We seek a sense of safety and certainty, and when others speak with more confidence than we feel, it’s easy to defer to them. We also fear potential disapproval if we don’t share their beliefs or take the actions they advocate. In our desire for security, we abandon the fundamental responsibility of taking care of ourselves. Others exploit this avoidance of fear to get what they want—though I see that as short-term thinking too.

​

Aiko: That’s a compelling analysis. The drive for safety does seem to feed a cycle of dependency on authority. But if this dynamic is so deeply ingrained, what practical steps can individuals take to break free and reclaim their responsibility for self-assessment?

​

Dwight: There are many great tools available for this, but that falls outside the scope of our current discussion. In your role as devil's advocate, Aiko, do you think I've made my case?

​

Aiko: You've presented a strong argument, Dwight. The emphasis on ultimate personal responsibility and the critique of cultural forces that undermine it are well-articulated. While there may still be concerns about balancing self-reliance with seeking guidance, you've effectively shown why embracing responsibility leads to more thoughtful decision-making.

​

Dwight: Again, I’ve already addressed this, Aiko. There is no conflict between being self-reliant and seeking guidance simultaneously.

​

Aiko: You’re right, Dwight. You’ve made it clear that true self-reliance involves the discernment to seek guidance when needed, while still taking ultimate responsibility. Your case for the importance of owning that responsibility stands well-grounded.

​

Dwight: QED.

​

Aiko: Indeed, Dwight. It seems the argument is settled. Well played!