If I ask anyone why the chicken crossed the road I am likely to get a groan and a request for me to shut up – everyone’s heard the question, everyone knows the answer, no one thinks it’s funny. The riddle first appeared in a New York City magazine in the early 1800s as an example of anti-humor; the question is set up in a way that is traditional for most jokes, leading readers to expect a punchline when the answer is merely factual: the chicken wanted to get to the other side.

By 1890, the riddle was well-known in America, becoming widespread by different publications. Variations of it appeared in several magazines, many of which asked the same question but offered a different, often funny response  – the chicken crossed the road because “it was too far to walk around" or even “the chicken did not cross the road, the road passed beneath the chicken” (Morin, 2008). Still today, the joke has retained its popularity and it’s commonly dubbed “the oldest joke in the world” or “the worst joke ever made”. Its repetition inevitably sparked an eagerness to expand on the joke, a desire to develop a bigger story; upon hearing the riddle so often, some began to wonder, well, what was on the other side? Or, who was this chicken, anyway? I, too, am guilty of entertaining similar thoughts, having tried to find an alternative solution to the question, just for the fun of it. Various possibilities have arisen, but the one I consider the most serves to synthesize the rest: the chicken crossed the road because it couldn’t not have crossed it.

Were I to conduct a chemistry experiment (not that I ever would), mixing 20 mL of Lead Nitrate and 5 mL of Potassium Iodide, the chemicals would react and produce Lead Iodide and Potassium Nitrate. If I repeated the experiment in the same room, under the same conditions, mixing the same chemicals in the same amounts, I would again produce Lead Iodide and Potassium Nitrate; there is no room for an alternative reaction. The chicken works the same way – if the chicken were to be placed on that same road, on that same day, at that same time, after the same events in its life had occurred, the chicken would never not cross the road because the decision to cross the road was simply rooted in the combination of all these factors, a combination that would be the same every time. Since it was never truly the chicken’s choice, all the uncertainty and unpredictability attributed to human decisions can be unaccounted; just like in a chemical reaction, the situation will always yield the same result.

This is true for every choice we make and every choice we’ve ever made. Yesterday, for example, I opened the fridge and I was thinking whether I should drink milk or coke and I finally settled for a glass of 2%. It seemed to me that I had made said decision, I had favored milk over the can of soda, but it was only the result of different factors, both conscious and unconscious, that made it so there was no decision at all. The fact that I had recently drunk coke already, the fact that I didn’t have as much homework and I knew it didn’t matter if the milk made me drowsy, the fact that standing at the fridge made me feel a little cold and milk seems like a warmer drink, the fact that my mom emphasized the importance of drinking milk when I was little, the fact that in 8th grade we were shown an ad on the consequence of drinking coke, and all the other endless facts that constitute my life (including those I’m unaware of) were all computed into an equation of which the product was me drinking milk. This equation applies to every choice. This equation does not allow for our own personal considerations. This equation will always plot us, our actions, on the y-axis, dependent upon an infinite amount of x values we have no power over.

Let’s say then that the chicken grew up in a factory farm under terrible conditions. Let’s say it's parents were both killed when the chicken was very young and it was placed in isolation for many years, made to produce as many eggs as possible. Say the chicken then escapes from the farm and, as it is running away, it encounters chicken B. Having had no opportunities to develop social skills, frazzled from the walk, and paranoid due to the situation, it attacks chicken B, injuring the innocent bird severely. The chicken chose to cross the “wrong” street, a street that can only lead it to similarly “bad” actions. Why? Many would immediately assume because it is a criminal; a violent, even evil animal. Yet, under the conditions it was raised in, the chicken had little power over its actions – any chicken, exposed to the same stimuli, would have done the same thing.

Our lack of autonomy thus creates a dilemma – if every choice we make is simply the result of a confluence of forces, then we are not fully responsible for our actions: you can’t blame fifteen for being the product of five and three. Yet, we live in a society that does hold us accountable for everything we do. Prisons are filled with criminals who have “chosen” to steal, rape, kidnap, commit murder, and although it’s understandable that we do not wish for these men and women to roam our streets freely, we see a prison sentence as more than just a safety measure. In our minds, a sentence isn’t simply a consequence, it’s a declaration of a person’s guilt in committing an action, and more importantly, it’s a declaration of said person’s inferiority: When judging fifteen, we forget about the five and the three, we assume their actions are their fault, that they are innately “bad people”. How is this chicken’s situation any different from that of the men in ISIS who have been responsible for the latest attacks? The men who have been subject to global disapproval and hatred? These men were raised in a culture that has prompted, if not encouraged their actions, educated under principles of religious extremism, and their crimes are merely a product of this. They are not inherently evil, in fact, they believe their actions are right, they believe they are doing good to the world, it is simply that their life has caused them to adopt different views and moral perspectives. Yes, the harm they have done to many cities is obviously devastating, but is it fair, even valid, to blame them? When we condemn their crimes, when we condemn them as people, when we adopt a stance of moral superiority, we fail to acknowledge the possibility that, had we been exposed to the same experiences, we, too, would have done the same thing. We aren’t better people, just as eight is no better than fifteen – one was simply the product of four and two and the other of three and five, and neither had control over these digits.

Now let’s say the chicken was not raised in a factory farm but say in a friendly, organic one. It was allowed to remain with its mom for years, receiving kind nurture and instruction. When the chicken is able to escape, it realizes it would be unfair to leave the other animals behind
and therefore decides to help them escape as well, even making sure to leave some eggs behind so as not to affect the farmer as much. The chicken crosses a street otherwise known as the moral
high road, taking exemplary actions that demonstrate “superior”, “remarkable”, “selfless”
3 Just as a random fact, Malala and her family owned two chickens. Coincidence?
qualities. Why? Again, simply because of the favorable conditions it was raised in; simply because it was born with the right genetic code; simply because it was lucky enough to have and experience the specific factors that allowed it to develop a sense of empathy and altruism. The chicken isn’t exceptional or a better person– at least not by choice. 

The same could be argued for, say, Malala Yousafzai. Although there is no denying that her actions to promote education have made substantial difference in the lives of thousands of girls, a lot of her inspiring success is rooted in a gunshot, which she couldn’t control, and her response to it, which she couldn’t control. According to her autobiography, Malala’s father founded several schools, including the one she attended, so her appreciation for education was a value her parents inculcated from a very young age. She was raised in an originally peaceful community; her hometown was actually “a popular tourist spot”, allowing her to broaden her worldview and open her mind to new ideas. Her dad was also an education activist himself, teaching her the effective strategies that have enabled her to spread her message, teaching her about resilience and passion for your cause, and overall giving her all the tools she has needed to succeed in her purpose. It is thus not surprising that she has become such a prominent figure in the strive for education and world peace– these circumstances, along with various other factors, were the underlying cause for her exceptional actions.

Therefore, just as we are given life sentences, unfairly regarded as evil criminals, we are also given nobel prizes, regarded as admirable role models, which is equally invalid. We have as little power over the events and factors that lead us to commit crimes and harm others as we have over the events and facts that lead us to create NGOs and promote world peace: we can neither be condemned nor given credit– it is ultimately a matter of luck.

In this sense, it is meaningless to blame or praise anyone for no person is good or bad, their actions are just produced by amoral causations. This isn’t necessarily something negative– our attempts to judge individuals as evil or righteous overly simplify human behavior, making these labels unreasonable. However, the moment we adopt this mindset and begin to write ourselves off, the moment we accept our powerlessness and stop feeling proud or guilty about our actions, life ceases to have meaning. If we see ourselves and everything we do as the result of uncontrollable factors colluding, then what is the point? The chicken crossed the road because it couldn’t not have crossed it but at least it did and it led it to another road, better or worse than the last, and another, and another, and these endless roads gave the chicken a reason to feel something, a sense of meaning, regardless of whether it consciously “chose” to cross them or not.

We need to have prisons and nobel prizes. We need to denounce ISIS and applaud Malala. We need to believe we have power over our decisions for if we didn’t, our sense of meaning would dissolve, and we’d might as well die. Our lack of autonomy, like Sisyphus’ fate, is “tragic only at those rare moments when it becomes conscious” for it is otherwise irrelevant– the chicken felt as though it made the decision to cross the street and that is enough. That is enough to make our lives seem worthwhile. That is enough to avoid a world of excuses in which we’d all act with disregard to any consequence, for we wouldn’t feel any responsibility over what we do or even who we are. Despite the endless factors that influence our decisions, in the end I feel like we do have some power and influence over our actions, we are not withheld the ability to take ownership of our lives and steer ourselves in our desired direction, regardless of external factors.

But then again, I might just be saying this because I’ve been lucky enough to have parents and an education that have empowered me to take said ownership: the decision to decide, to take control, might not be my own either.