You've got to be a determinist to understand what I've written below.
People have a choice based on their judgment, which is based on their belief system, which is based on their past and current experience, which is based on the interpretation of external and internal events, which is based on focus, which is based on genetic predispositions. It all comes down to the survival instinct. We choose to focus on whatever's best for our survival. In the big picture, choice is just part of the whole cause-effect chain.
The big issue is that we often construct new beliefs upon our prior beliefs, which many times turn out to be outdated, especially if you've had a violent past. In this fashion, many of our choices are in fact irrational, since we're accessing old shortcuts in our mind to files that no longer run on the new operating system - the current external world. We compare new things to old things, but what makes the old things qualified to set standards?
One doesn't have a choice but to act predictably according to his predetermination, or does he? I've been thinking... if you want some randomness in your decision making, you can always flip a coin. It's risky, but it can also be beneficial, in a way that you might have gotten used to a bad strategy, and trying something new may help you expand your knowledge of alternative strategies. So if you toss a coin, you cheat your own predictability, and you bring some chaos to your choosing. The risk you're taking is, you might make an unpredictably irrational decision. The purpose, of course, is to make an unpredictably rational one.
The coin toss would inevitably become a part of your belief system, and your judgment would then be directly influenced by chance. This is dangerous stuff, and I wouldn't experiment with important dilemmas. This should only be used as a method of seeking alternative beliefs, rather than having chance itself be that alternative criterion of choice. Fictional character Harvey Dent is a perfect example of the latter case.
