The distinction between voluntary actions driven by intention and those driven by necessity or circumstance is fundamental to understanding our behaviours' value and meaning. Whether in moral, spiritual, or everyday contexts, the motivations behind our actions significantly influence how others perceive and value them.

Voluntary actions, born out of free will, are a testament to our ability to make deliberate choices and pursue specific paths. Often regarded as virtuous, these actions embody our conscious commitment to principles or goals. For instance, fasting as a voluntary practice is revered in many cultures and religions for its representation of self-discipline, spiritual focus, and a willingly made sacrifice for a higher purpose. The intentionality behind such actions gives them their moral and spiritual weight, empowering us with the knowledge that we can shape our moral compass.

Similarly, choosing celibacy as a lifestyle can be viewed as a profound expression of personal or spiritual commitment. When someone voluntarily decides to abstain from sexual activity, it often reflects deep-seated values and principles, making it a meaningful and respected choice. The critical element here is the presence of alternative options—despite having the opportunity to engage in certain behaviours, the individual chooses to refrain for reasons that align with their beliefs and goals. You could say that voluntary action is the opposite of a necessity-driven act. 

VIDEO: https://youtu.be/A3VVZrLqDPc

In contrast, actions driven by necessity or circumstance lack the element of choice that characterizes voluntary actions. These actions occur because external factors leave the individual with no viable alternatives. For instance, abstaining from food due to a lack of availability fundamentally differs from fasting by choice. In the former scenario, the individual is compelled by circumstances beyond their control, and the action does not carry the same moral or spiritual significance as a voluntary fast.

Similarly, not engaging in sexual activity because of the absence of a partner is distinct from choosing celibacy. The lack of opportunity removes the element of intentionality, making the abstinence a result of necessity rather than a deliberate decision. Such actions, driven by external constraints, do not reflect the same level of agency or commitment to higher principles.

The concept of agency is central to understanding the value of voluntary actions. Agency refers to individuals' capacity to make free choices and act independently. When actions are voluntary, they reflect the individual's ability to exercise control over their desires and decisions. This exercise of agency imbues these actions with moral and spiritual significance.

Conversely, when actions are dictated by necessity or driven by personal gains, the individual's agency is diminished. External circumstances, such as lack of resources or opportunities, constrain one's ability to choose freely. This limitation impacts the moral evaluation of the actions, as they no longer represent a deliberate commitment but rather a response to unavoidable conditions or personal goals. Recognizing the agency's role in our actions allows a more nuanced and compassionate understanding of people's behaviours and choices.

Understanding the distinction between voluntary and necessary actions necessitates thoroughly considering the context in which these actions occur. When we delve into the underlying motivations of an action, our perceptions of it can change significantly. For example, an action initially seen as virtuous can be reevaluated when it becomes clear that it was driven by necessity rather than choice. This understanding of context empowers us with a more comprehensive view of actions, enlightening us about the complexities of human decision-making.

For example, someone who appears to be practising celibacy may initially be viewed as making a commendable moral decision. However, if it is revealed that this abstinence is due to the lack of a partner, the perception shifts. The action is no longer seen as a voluntary commitment but rather a condition imposed by circumstances. A leader who takes specific actions aimed only at electability may be viewed differently when the intention behind the action is revealed. This shift highlights the importance of context in evaluating the moral and spiritual value of actions.

The distinction between voluntary actions and circumstantial necessity is crucial in our social-political lives, as it influences the assessment of responsibility, accountability, and moral judgment. Political leaders' performance is shaped by their ability to balance voluntary actions and circumstantial necessity. Visionary leaders can proactively implement their vision and policies and navigate and respond to unforeseen challenges with competence and agility. When leaders act voluntarily, they can set their agenda, align with their values, and pursue long-term goals. The approach can lead to innovative policies and visionary leadership, as decisions are made proactively and with strategic intent.

By embracing voluntary actions and making deliberate selfless choices, we can strive towards actual moral and spiritual growth, ensuring that our behaviours align with our values and principles rather than merely reacting to external or personal interests. Leaders who make voluntary, intentional, selfless decisions may be perceived as strong, moral, and honest. Their actions can build public trust and support, as constituents view them as deliberate and aligned with their campaign promises and ideological stance. Such actions create trust amongst subjects, who view their leaders as honest, dedicated, and responsible, emphasizing the importance of personal accountability in leadership.

Sadly, when the electorate continuously chooses bad leaders to represent and rule them despite the obvious signs, one wonders who to blame: the deceitful, crafty leaders or the gullible constituents. Once bitten, twice shy. A beautiful idiom, isn't it?