People's behavior is largely determined by forces not of their own making

The argument whether people's behavior is determined solely by external forces or is primarily due to the choices individuals themselves make is indeed a debatable one. On one hand proponents of the argument will say that the behavior people exhibit is greatly influenced by the milieu they are placed in, the peopple they associate with. Basically the assert people are conformists and sometimes act independent of the beliefs and morals they cherish. I partly agree with the argument that external factors do play an important role in shaping the decisions people take and the results these decisions produce.

It is self evident that man is a social animal. No man can live as an island jouneying through life alone. Since the time of conception man is always surrounded by "guiding forces" be it parents, teachers, peers or friends. A man is known by the company he keeps. Since man is constanly in the companionship of another, it is quite possible that a man may choose to forsake his own individual beliefs to conform to the belief of the group he is in.

To reiterate my belief let me present you with an example. Consider the example of a politician in power. Bipartisan politics is very common in this day and age where a seat in the assembly is of paramount importance. In this case the politician sacrifices his beliefs and aligns himself with another set of beliefs during election time to further himself. People's behavior is usually influenced when they stand to achieve material and worldly gains .If no tangible gain be achieved in the foreseeable future people will usually remain impervious to external forces. Furthermore when people find themselves under tremendous amounts of pressure, beliefs are compromised and their behavior is influenced by external factors. Consider the example of an employee on a deadline. If he realizes that his work will not be complete he resorts to cheating as a way of completing his task. Here while the external force is the environment and not a person, the reason he choses to give up his morals is for a quick gain

Opponents of the argument will cite man's ability to think for himself and rationalize circumstances before making a decision. Since man is an emotionally and intellectually advanced species they ascertain that an individual ought to be able to make a decision for himself irrespective of the external world. Consider for example the case of Mahatma Gandhi. During one of his school tests Gandhi was caught copying off a classmate. When the results were declared Gandhi topped his class. Ashamed with himself, Gandhi went up to the teacher to apologize for his transgressions. In those days a crime like this would have meant serious punishment; in some cases even rustication. Gandhi put aside all these forces and stuck to his principles risking his academic career. The teacher impressed with his honesty forgave Gandhi and allowed him to return back to the class.

In conclusion both sides of the argument have their own sets of pros and cons. While it is true that majority of our decisions affect a large number of people and must hence be morally and socially the most optimum behavior, in some cases the sacredness of individuality must never be compromised. Exteranl forces include both people and environmental forces and giving into them and enabling them to influence our behavior is a trap that many have fallen into. However integrity in an individual is of paramount importance and such individuals do not allow external forces to dictate their behavior and hence their actions.