Control Your Own Fate

decisions or destiny?

Is a person responsible for his/her own destiny? This topic came up recently in a discussion with friends when I argued that a person’s fate is largely determined by their own good or bad decisions. Almost everyone disagreed with me, providing examples of acquaintances who found themselves in trouble due to unfortunate circumstances. My statement was deemed arrogant and inhumane. As a result, it was difficult to engage in the discussion, as I had to defend not the logic of my argument but its moral implications.

The argument of unequal starting conditions was raised. Some are born into good families, in good countries, at good times, while others are born into the opposite. How can their lives turn out the same? I fully agree—differences in initial (birth) and boundary (environmental) conditions play an enormous role in people’s fates. My chances of being as wealthy as Bill Gates are far smaller than those of Gates's children. However, the probability isn’t zero, and Gates himself is proof of that—he earned his billions. But I’m not claiming that we all have the same opportunities. Of course, we don’t. However, within the limits of your own opportunities, you can achieve more or less depending on your decisions.

Then, a counterargument was proposed: even within the same range of opportunities, two individuals can achieve differently because one may be smarter, more disciplined, and more hardworking than the other. This raises the question—are these traits purely genetic, or do they also depend on an individual’s free will? Claiming that better decisions stem solely from better genes completely disregards human agency—the freedom to make good decisions even when tempted to make bad ones. If human behavior is merely the result of circumstances and genetics, then individuals are not responsible for bad behavior or crimes and do not deserve praise or rewards for good deeds and achievements. In that case, our moral and legal systems would have to be discarded.

Thus, a person’s free will to make decisions is a necessary condition for the existence of civil society. Although constrained by initial and boundary conditions—place of birth, family, time, inherited genes, and natural laws—a person can still freely decide their actions and achieve more or less depending on their choices. Even bad decisions can often be corrected, as none of us are without flaws. But if someone consistently makes poor decisions, they cannot blame their circumstances.

In some cases, individuals with very favorable conditions and good genes can still go astray, while those with poor conditions and mediocre genetics can surpass the boundaries set by circumstances and achieve great things. Therefore, my belief that people’s decisions, regardless of circumstances, fundamentally shape their fate is not immoral. Rather, it is the theory that humans are mere slaves to circumstances and genetics that is truly antihuman.