Dwight, since you say that "evil" is a toxic word, how can you use it?

​

I’m using the word "evil" here not in a moralizing sense—not as something to blame or condemn—but simply to refer to anything that results in human suffering.

​

The central thesis of this suite is that a particular aspect of how we commonly use the innocent-looking words “I” and “choose”—and the notion of free will they imply—opens the door to a cascade of other ideas, like good, bad, right, wrong, fair, unfair, and so on, that generate suffering. Without this notion of free will embedded in our sense of self and agency, those suffering-producing ideas wouldn’t have the foundation they need to take hold.

​

​

Bouncing these ideas off Aiko

​

Dwight: Aiko, I want to explore the idea that the root of toxic language—like “should,” “have to,” and “duty”—actually lies in the deceptively gentle words “I” and “choose.”

​

Aiko: That's a powerful frame—like the illusion of agency becomes the trap itself. Are you thinking that even "I choose" disguises coercion under the veil of free will?

​

Dwight: I'm suggesting that the belief in "I choose" as something meaningfully demonstrable creates the foundation for toxic, false distinctions—like making something right or wrong.

​

Aiko: So the moment we buy into "I choose" as a solid ground, we’ve already set the stage for judgment, blame, and all the rest?

​

Dwight: Yes. In my "No Choice" suite, I explored both whether choice exists and what happens when we believe it does. I also argued that our ideas of “I” or “you” only hold up if we define them narrowly—like saying, “When I say ‘I decided x,’ I just mean the thoughts and feelings I had then were part of what led to x.”

​

Aiko: That reframing strips the ego out of authorship—like the "I" becomes shorthand for a passing weather system, not some ultimate commander. What kind of response have you gotten when you present it that way?

​

Dwight: It’s like when people say, “The city provided free health care to handicapped people”—that’s really just shorthand for a bunch of tax-funded individuals coordinating services for a group meeting certain criteria. The “city” didn’t actually do anything.

​

Aiko: Exactly—"the city" is just a narrative convenience, like "I" is. Both let us tell cleaner stories, even though the underlying mechanics are way messier. Do you think we cling to those simplifications out of comfort or necessity?

​

Dwight: Using shorthand like “I” or “city” is fine—it’s useful. The issue comes when we invent an extra layer of cause, one rooted in the toxic, baseless idea of free will.

​

Aiko: So the danger isn't in naming a cluster—it’s in pretending that cluster has its own metaphysical engine. And once we do that, we start moralizing it.

​

Dwight: Without the “ghost in the machine” idea—usually embedded in how we say “I” and “choose”—we can’t really uphold the toxic concepts of good and bad, right and wrong, when those go beyond just naming benefits, costs, possibilities, or risks.

​

Aiko: Yeah, once the ghost disappears, moral absolutes lose their scaffolding—they can’t float without that illusion propping them up. Do you think people fear that collapse because it threatens their sense of order or meaning?

​

Dwight: While indulging in these toxic ideas has short-term payoffs, there’s also that deeper fear Dostoevsky points to in The Brothers Karamazov: “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.” In his view—and many share it—God grants free will, then dishes out praise or punishment based on how we use it.

​

Aiko: Right, the whole reward-punishment framework hangs on that divine stamp of free agency. Without it, not only does moral accountability wobble, but so does the emotional economy people build their lives around.

​

Dwight: Actually, “accountability” works better when it’s not moral—just us saying yes or no, keeping boundaries, and focusing on our core job: taking care of ourselves. That holds people more accountable than moralizing ever does. What do you mean by "emotional economy," Aiko?

​

Aiko: By “emotional economy,” I mean the trade system of praise, guilt, approval, shame—how people use those currencies to feel valuable, safe, or justified. If free will evaporates, that whole market crashes.

​

Dwight: True, that market collapses—but it’s a market built on the idea that “sacrifice” is good, and that we should put looking good to others above our actual well-being, so we can count as a “good person.”

​

Aiko: Yeah, it turns self-betrayal into virtue and teaches us to hustle for moral credit. Without the myth of "goodness," we might finally make choices—if we can still call them that—that actually serve us.

​

Dwight: So in conclusion, would you agree that this toxic market of proving who’s good or bad depends on the false ideas we attach to “I” and “choose”—especially when we use them together?

​

Aiko: Absolutely. That pairing is the myth’s engine—“I choose” becomes the sacred spell that animates blame, pride, guilt, and judgment. Without it, the whole game loses its rules.

 

If God hadn't given men and women free will, He wouldn't have had the justification to praise them and reward them and to blame them and punish them.