They might call us rebels now, but tomorrow they could call us innovators.
When we make our own decisions, we feel really better than when we follow somebody's opinions or advice in spite of the fact that our emotions can interfere with our reason. For Professor Paul Thagard (2005) of the University of Waterloo both positive and negative emotions have their place and function in relation to reason:
"In sum, both theoretical and practical reasons involve processes of generating alternatives and evaluating them in order to select the best. Both generation and evaluation involve emotions, and the involvement is often positive, when emotions guide the search for attractive alternatives and when they signal a gestalt that marks the achievement of a maximally coherent state of mind."
Thagard (2005) summarizes his position about negative emotions with the following assertions: "To overcome these negative effects of emotions, we need to adopt procedures such as informed intuition that recognize and encourage the contributions of affect to theoretical and practical reason, while watching for the presence of distortions. In addition to being passionately moderate, one should aim to be moderately passionate."
Risk is also a negative factor that can discourage us from making our own decisions. Christine Van Lenten (2005) in an article entitled "How to Decide; Reason Tackles Risk" deals with this issue in some detail stating with brief words a lot of practical wisdom when she said: "How you decide shapes what you decide". Instead of taking the risk of making mistakes when following a fallible human being like us, it's really much better to assume the responsibility of making our own mistakes. This gives us a sense of self-actualization in the long run.
Even when we talk about extreme cases of disability or incompetence like in the case of a young girl named Liz who suffers from the Down's syndrome, we find that to certain extent that disabled girl is making her own decisions with joy every step of the way. Her father, Al Etmanski (2005), argued that there is certain degree of injustice in the legal system when it comes to deal with her little girl. He made his point with the following words:
"The standards of decision-making capability in our society remain firmly rooted in a narrowly defined, highly overrated form of intellectual ability. In our province, the legal test is your ability to demonstrate you understand the nature and effect of your decision. Using that standard, Liz, who has Down's syndrome, would most likely fail."
But notice that Liz is happily making her own decisions even though she is not a competent adult woman:
"My daughter has a wisdom that eludes many of us. She understands her limitations and adjusts with patience and eagerness. She negotiates the complexities and inequities of her world with more ingenuity, courage, and equanimity than she should have to. She offers, for all those willing to listen, a course in perfecting a life." (Etmanski, 2005),
Many religious people will oppose our clear position about using