Choice is one of the most important aspects of intellectual life, and control must be included as a consequence or contributor to choice. Without possessing choice, freewill or some degree of control over our own lives, we may live, but intellectually we are dead. This may seem strange to some, separating intellectual life from biological life. After all, in this world we each have only one life, or at least only one at a one time for those who wish to think they will or have had more than one. I do not by making this distinguishment between intellectual life and biological life mean to imply there are two lives, nor two different aims or goals; one for the body and one for the mind. Certainly such distinctions are there to be made, though not relevant I think to the simple assertion that life as we define it, that which we possess some degree of responsibility for because we are conscious of ourselves and our lives, and to some degree our potentials and the consequences for what we do or fail to do, depends upon possessing both the choice among different courses of action, and the control, power, or freedom to pursue those differing avenues of events and possibilities.

          Such differing notions of life and responsibility for ones actions is best typified by how we view the distinction between human actions and those species we identify as animals. Animals are not burdened by us to be thought of generally as good or evil, as they behave as they do primarily on instinct rather than what we call learned behavior. They react as they do in situations as their genetics up until their existence best prepared them to behave, so goes the belief anyway. What animals do is supposedly what is in their nature to do, and is generally not viewed in moral terms. Because we possess seemingly more awareness of our actions, their contexts and consequences for others, we are viewed quite differently as a species of individuals very much in moral terms. We are not free to behave as animals would nor would most wish to live in a society where others behaved as such toward ourselves. We put up walls of what is acceptable behavior, those who always keep their actions within the strictest of these confines we term to be moral people and with moral terms; good, decent, righteous. Those whose actions stray from those confines we term either the individuals or the actions in moral terms as well, bad, evil, or unholy.

          The degree of freedom of an animal and the degree of freedom of a man or woman too, are not on the same playing field. Animals excepting those who live in herds or groups generally have unlimited freedom of action depending only on their perceived choices and their natural abilities. But beyond their own abilities, their survival is limited only to what they themselves can do to keep themselves alive. I exclude those who live in herds and groups from this analogy because they too may have special rules to adhere to, can be shunned from the aid of the group, and can benefit from others aid should they be hurt, hungry, or otherwise in need.

          The freedom of Man in comparison to that of an animal is on the surface far lessened. The bounds of behavior are as complex and as confining as ones intelligence can imagine or allow, and the bounds of behavior allowed or condoned fluctuates literally on a daily basis with too many rules for one to be able to name. Between every law and every custom and every tradition, much of our consciousnesses are very much preoccupied with making sure we are doing whatever we are doing correctly and within the confines of acceptable behavior for remaining within our given or perceived group. The trade-off for this, as in all species which live in groups, is that we never so to speak, walk alone. 

          Should an animal or outsider attack us, another of our species or group will come to our aid. Should we grow sick, another would care for us and bring us food until we are well. This is of course relative, and varies with different groups. Most often threats to ourselves come not from other species, but other members of our own species, and depending upon whom, or to what group they belong, others coming to our aid if attacked is far from assured. Other factors enter into it as well. Maybe that person deserved to be beaten or killed. Maybe he or she was a bad person who did bad things. Maybe, some speculate due to such reasonings, maybe the good person is the aggressor protecting us from the other person who would do bad things otherwise. Without such knowledge (or explanations which may or may not be valid) or context to place events within conceptually, all policemen would be just people who chase, beat up, and shoot others, and all executions would just be more murders. Not always knowing the context of something prevents us from knowing within our own minds and desires to stay within the bounds of acceptable behavior can keep us from helping another. Maybe he is bad and did something to deserve it, or maybe the attackers are part of a group or gang one dares not provoke or anger.

          Variable too are the chances for aid one would receive were one to become ill or weak and unable to work, the modern equivalent of finding food in the animal analogy, which would of course be stealing if one were to do simply that, finding food. If one becomes too weak to do something which ones society finds worthy of giving one food for, or is unable to find something to do which would result in having food, how much help one would receive would depend upon ones culture, government, and circumstances. Primarily family groups used to care for members sick or infirm until they were well and could acquire food or the means to obtain food themselves. Now in many societies, social changes have led to the local or national governments taking over a supporting role in caring for the weak, sick, and those unable to work, and this has allowed family members to recede from this role. Governments, national and local, around the world vary greatly in how much help and for how long, and who qualifies for such help.

          Because it is often not clear who ultimately who in a government or society is responsible for such people, many societies have the majority of people willing to simply bypass or overlook these people as if they do not exist until they simply die of malnutrition or starvation. If large pockets of people dying of starvation elsewhere exists, governments will sometimes send food to those regions for awhile, but generally societies slowly will weed out the people they do no wish to have simply by overlooking them until they die in a gutter somewhere if they cannot find someone to give them food, if they cannot find a way to obtain it for themselves. They do not have to even prohibit people from aiding them anymore. Most have been conditioned not to think or care about it much, and are more than willing to look away.