I mean it’s really not that hard. You just do whatever is better. When given two choices, you choose the better of the two. There is little struggle in the process of choosing.
The true dilemma lies in the determination of which is better for what.
Say that you are put in a scenario in which you must choose between a healthy meal that tastes bad, and a tasty unhealthy meal. Which is better? I imagine that there would be no general consensus for either choice.
A bad-tasting healthy meal would prioritize health over immediate satisfaction, and vice versa for a tasty unhealthy meal.
Because we all value aspects of life differently, it is natural that we would see a divide. Each choice caters to a separate prioritized value.
When you make a choice, you are selecting inputs based on a predicted output. In a multiple choice question, you fill in the bubble that you predict will give you the desired outcome: a correct answer. Unlike a multiple choice question, however, our world uses outputs beyond that “correct” and “incorrect”.
Under the assumption that all humans make decisions that they desire, it can be concluded that the choices one make is a reflection of their nature, as the choice of input is directly correlated to the predicted output. In other words, because choices show what people desire, it is reasonable to claim that one’s identity is defined by their choices.
I wonder — if every single human being to exist on this planet were to be asked to make an infinite amount of choices of an infinite variety, if any two people would share the exact same inputs. If they do, then surely, they must be the same person.
