Q&A: A Reflection on What You Wrote in Your Book "The Science of Freedom"
A Reflection on What You Wrote in Your Book "The Science of Freedom"
Question
Hello and blessings, Rabbi,
While reading your book "The Science of Freedom," I came across a claim you present, saying that in a situation where a person has no reasons to decide in favor of one side or the other, then his choice is not free. (In your book, you compared the situation to elections in Switzerland.)
In my humble opinion, this claim is not precise. After all, there cannot be a situation in which there are absolutely no considerations or inclinations toward one of the sides. The considerations may be minor, but they are still considerations.
When a person makes such a decision without deliberation, it is because he decided not to examine the case and decide accordingly. It is not that there were no sides to the decision and the person had no freedom at the time of the act, but rather that the person decided (consciously or unconsciously) that these considerations were not critical, and therefore there was no point in examining them and deciding based on them.
This is still making a decision on the basis of a consideration—the consideration of whether the decision is important enough to examine its sides and decide accordingly or not.
These are my thoughts on the matter; I would be glad to hear your opinion.
Best regards,
Answer
Hello A.,
In principle you are of course right, and I addressed this in my book as well. But think about the case of the Libet experiments. A person has to decide to press a button at some point in time. What are his considerations for whether to press it or not? There are no real considerations. Moreover, we know that at some stage an electrical signal arises in his brain that causes him an urge to press it (what is called RP). My claim is that the moment this signal arises, the person will press, because once he feels the urge he has no reason to resist it (since he has no substantive considerations one way or the other). Of course he decided not to resist, and that itself is a decision. Still, de facto the signal is what caused him to press. Therefore I am not claiming that he has no choice in such a matter, but rather that his choice is trivial. In other words: people who argue that a person has no choice because of the Libet experiments are mistaken.
Discussion on Answer
Who said otherwise? Of course that is so.
Thank you for your response.
Regarding the Libet experiments, I want to say more than what you said: not only do they fail to prove the absence of free choice, but the person’s free choice is what led to the results of the experiment—the person decided, consciously or unconsciously, not to get into the relevant considerations of why yes and why no; that is, the person decided that this decision was not important to him.
That is not correct. An unconscious decision, even if it is free, has no significance at all. Moral responsibility is imposed on a person when he decided consciously, not when some mechanism within him produced the decision, even if that mechanism did so non-deterministically.
But even if the person acts out of some mechanism, he chose not to resist that mechanism.
So the choice is conscious and not unconscious.
You are absolutely right, as I already wrote. My remarks were directed at those who see the Libet experiment as unconscious free choice (I thought that was your claim), and that is what I was commenting on here.
I understand.
But what I am trying to argue is that there really is no such thing as unconscious choice. Even in unconscious choices, the person chooses not to think about the sides of the matter—and there are always sides.
And I repeat again that I completely agree.
But in your book you wrote about the elections in Switzerland, and you argued there that the voter there does not perform an act of free choice because his choice has no real significance, and therefore he does not engage with the sides of the choice (you wrote that even the libertarian would admit this).
But in my opinion, the choice not to engage with the sides of the matter is also a free choice.
What I wrote is that this is a free choice that has no significance (freedom but not liberty). He chooses freely between two identical options (he is not the one who decides that they are identical). Therefore, de facto this is a lottery and not a choice.
But the choice does have significance because the person decided not to examine the sides of the decision.
Even if we see it as a lottery, the person decided to draw lots and not to examine the decision in depth.
I can’t understand what is unclear here.
The voter in Switzerland did not decide, because there are no different sides and therefore there is nothing between which to decide. It is like saying that a person does not decide that 2=2. It simply equals 2, that’s all. Remember that in metaphorical Switzerland there is no problem on earth that needs solving. When there are no problems, the voter who has to put a slip into the ballot box is not deciding anything. He is simply making a random selection. Moreover, even the decision to make a random selection is not a decision, because he has no other option (there is no substantive criterion for how and for whom to vote. Therefore everything he does is nothing but a lottery).
But is there really a situation in which there is no criterion or reason at all to decide in favor of a certain side? After all, there always is.
The example of Switzerland is a thought experiment meant to illustrate something. This is not about the real Switzerland. It is about a hypothetical country in which there are no problems.
I understand. But is such a case, in which there is no reason at all to decide in favor of a certain side, even possible?
In principle yes, but in practice it is almost impossible. It is like Buridan’s donkey (see Wikipedia about it). But that is not important, since this is a hypothetical example meant to sharpen a principle. So it does not really matter whether it is feasible or not.
Thank you for your answer.
I understand your arguments, but on the moral level this is still a free decision that carries moral responsibility.