> One way of steering people toward good decisions is to expose them to some of the consequences of their bad choices. But how is this actually done? In any of

> One way of steering people toward good decisions is to expose them to some of the consequences of their bad choices. But how is this actually done? In any of the cases noted in the article, how would you have exposed people to those consequences without simply subjecting them to those consequences and leaving them to rot? Can you say to a single parent, "Well, now you know what kind of person not to have a child with"? The child is born. It has its own rights and needs. You're presented with a whole new set of choices to make, with their own consequences, that you still can't foresee with perfect clarity. You say that not all of the choices have to be perfect... but that doesn't seem any different from what Murray, at least as portrayed by the article, is arguing. And moreover, can you really say that you're presenting them with a choice? Here's an anti-Christian argument about free will: many Christians say that going to Hell is your own choice. Their job is to simply to inform you of that choice, so that you can freely accept Christ before you die. But the choice is between eternal bliss and eternal torment. Is that really a choice? The real choice isn't really between eternal bliss and eternal torment: it's between accepting coercion or refusing it.