ErichMusick.com
Personal web site of Erich Musick - software engineer and Christ follower
Control
About this Page
Who's in Control of our Actions?
Control. Who is in control of our actions and decisions and what happens as a result of them? As humans, we like to believe that we are in control of our actions and decisions and that we are in complete control of where we go and what we do in life, but is that really the case? Are there other factors besides us that help determine where we go and what we do in life? Is there a supreme being, such as God, that controls where our actions and decisions will take us and even influences our decisions, or does chance/fate and only chance/fate play a factor in decisions we make and their outcomes? Do other people have the ability to control our actions and us, or is that not possible?
As was stated, the nature of humans is to want to feel like one is in control of him/herself and where his/her decisions will lead him/her in life. We like to believe that we aren't influenced when making decisions, but, after discussing the topic of what influences our decisions in class, I realized that most of our decisions are influenced, in some way or another, by our peers, our family, television, movies, music, teachers, and so forth.
For example, take the topic of clothing. Why do we wear the clothes we wear? When I go to school, I generally see people in the same clique wearing similar clothing. Some people believe that they buy the clothing they buy only because it feels comfortable and it (supposedly) lasts a long time, but, in my opinion, I think students' decisions of what clothing to purchase are influenced by their peers and also by the companies that make clothing. If a person's friends didn't wear Abercrombie and Fitch clothing, they probably wouldn't wear it. Clothing manufacturers, too, have a big influence on what clothing students buy; if only one style is made, students will have to buy that one style, whether they like it or not. True, there isn't only one style of clothing out there, but there is a limited selection that is determined by clothing manufacturers. They know that people need clothing but won't have a tailor make it; instead, they'll purchase something that is already made. Therefore, no matter what style the clothing is, people will buy it.
Choice of clothing is not the only decision that we are influenced to make. Think about decisions you've made recently, and think of any way they could have been influenced. Maybe which store you shop at for groceries is influenced by where your mother and/or father shopped when you were a child. Your beliefs, values, and morals are influenced by your family, friends, and society. If you think long enough about your reasons for doing any specific activity, you can find some way in which you were influenced to make that decision or do that certain activity.
So, how much control do we really have over our decisions and actions? How much can you control someone else's and your decisions? In class, we discussed some different scenarios in which one person or group of people was trying to control another person or group of people. In the first scenario, a lady played a specific song for her sons whenever she served a certain meal from the time they were born. She hoped to be able to prevent them from arguing about which meal they wanted. Whenever she played the music, she then asked her sons what they wanted to eat for dinner, and they responded with the meal that corresponded to the song. Most people in the class thought that this might work for a while, but that eventually the boys would figure out what she was up to and rebel and not go along with what she was attempting to do. We decided that this was probably so because as you get older, you get smarter and are able to figure things out more easily and catch on more quickly. If this woman had begun this experiment when the boys were about ten years old instead of when they were very young, it probably wouldn't have worked due to the fact that they would already know what foods they like and want to eat each night for dinner. Although they heard music each time they had a certain entree, they would have either caught on or just ignored it. Another problem that exists with this method of control is that the kids may not have wanted to listen to the music their mother was playing. By the time you're ten, you usually like a certain type of music, and it's most likely not the type your parents like.
In the second scenario, a girl leaves her home to join a cult, where she is isolated from her family and can only socialize with others in the cult. Her parents want her to "snap out of it," so to speak, and go back to her previous lifestyle. I think it would be very difficult for her to "snap out of it." She has made the decision to join the cult, and usually, when you join a cult, you don't join it without wanting to. Cults are deceitful: They usually draw people in sneakily and then take all their money and tell them a bunch of lies, without them realizing what is actually being done to them. If cult members ever actually realize that they're being deceived and try to get out, it's very difficult. I think that the only way the girl will have the ability to "snap out of it" will be if she realizes what the cult is doing to her and if she wants to get out. If she doesn't want to leave the cult, but is forced to, she will probably still try to find a way to get back in it and/or be associated with it, one way or another.
The third scenario we discussed was about a man who aided in the execution of Jews and other "inferior" people during World War II. This man commanded the guards who lined up people to be executed and led them into the gas chambers. This scenario brought up many interesting points about how much control this man had over his actions. Although it would have meant certain death or imprisonment, I believe this man shouldn't have obeyed his superior's commands to aid in the execution of millions of innocent people. Some people in the class argued that this man was only obeying orders and that we reward people for serving our country, so why should we punish him for serving his country? Normally, I'd agree with these people - under normal circumstances, someone shouldn't be punished for obediently serving their country - God says in his Word, the Bible, in Romans 13 that we should obey the government, and that's what he was doing, right? He was obeying his country, BUT you also have to look at what his country stood for. If Germany had just been one country fighting another, I wouldn't think that this man should be punished, but since he was helping a country that was against Jews and people with mental disabilities kill those people, I think he should be punished. If this man had been out in France fighting for Germany and he didn't have any clue what Germany stood for and what it was doing, I would have decided not to punish him, because, like if it had been a normal war situation, he was obeying his country's commands.
The fourth scenario had to do with a young man the age of 18 who was an alcoholic. He had been sent to rehab two times, but he had gotten back on alcohol again. He was sent to rehab a third time and was told that the only way he'd be able to stay sober would be to stay away from alcohol altogether. That would mean that at family parties they wouldn't be able to serve alcohol, he'd have to change his friends, etc. I think this solution is very unreasonable because it is very difficult to not have alcohol around when you have a family and friends like this young man had. I think the only way for this young man to change would be for him to be willing to change. If he didn't want to change his bad drinking habits, they wouldn't be able to force him to because he would still think of different ways to go out and get alcohol.
The fifth scenario we discussed had to do with the story of Patricia Hearst - the daughter of a very wealthy man. Patricia was supposedly kidnapped one day and then forced to rob a bank for her captors - the SLA (Symbionese Liberation Army). Patricia was charged for armed bank robbery and put in prison for a number of years, even though she claimed she was brainwashed into robbing the bank. Although some people would disagree with me, I don't think Patricia was actually brainwashed; I think she just felt like she had to obey her captors because she felt threatened. It was her choice to go along with the SLA rather than to give up her life (she had control over what she decided to do); why should she get away with it. Some people would argue that her life is more important than the money she stole. I agree that human life should be valued and preserved, but it's never right to do something wrong just because it will keep you from death. There is a familiar saying that states, "Two wrongs don't make a right," and I agree with this - it was wrong for the SLA to kidnap Patricia, but that doesn't make it right for her to go rob a bank to save her life.
The last scenario we had was about a young man in a gang who had participated in brutal acts of violence many times. The government, rather than keeping this young man in prison for his whole sentence, made him sit through scenes of violence while, at the same time, they induced vomiting so that, eventually, whenever he saw an act of violence, he vomited. The Sate Prison Board then decided to release him early because it felt that his violence was under control, but was it really? I don't think his violence was actually under control because, first of all, he was in a gang. Going to prison didn't get him out of the gang, so after he was released from prison, his gang could still make him commit brutal acts of violence, even if he did vomit while doing it. Second of all, just because this young man would vomit whenever he acted in a violent manner doesn't mean he would stop acting violently. If he acted violently enough times, he could either get used to the vomiting, or even stop it altogether.
In each of these six scenarios, there was evidence of someone trying to control someone else or someone being controlled by someone else. I think, to some extent, people's actions can be controlled, but it doesn't usually work very well. In the last scenario, the government got the young man to vomit at the sight of violence, but, as was stated, I don't think that vomiting will work well - he'll either get used to it or stop it altogether.
Although it may be possible to control and/or influence someone's decisions to a certain extent, I don't think it's possible at all to control the outcome(s) of a person's actions. Some people think that fate/chance affects the outcome(s) of a person's actions and/or decisions, but this is not the case. God is in control and He decides the outcome of every decision and every action of every person. Someone could decide to drive a car while drunk and get in a crash and kill himself, while another person who makes the same decision may live until he is 100 years old - it all depends on what God has in store for them. Two people can make a very similar or even the same decision, but where that decision leads them may be totally different. God has a plan for everyone's life, and HE uses the decisions we make to guide us down the path HE wants us to go, not necessarily where we want to go. Someone can decide that he/she wants to become a really, really rich business person, but if God doesn't want that to happen, He'll use their decisions they think are leading them to become a businessman/woman for His own purpose.
We all like to feel like we're in control of our lives and what's going to happen to us, but that actually isn't the case. This feeling we desire comes from pride - we think we can do what WE want on OUR own, without God, without realizing that He has already planned what's going to happen to us. So next time you think, "Some day I'm going to...," remember that what you want isn't always going to happen.
