On the a priori nature of values and implications for the meaning of free choice
Hello Rabbi,
In the column “The Arbitrariness of Will in Leibowitz’s Doctrine – Positivism and Pluralism”, you wrote that the positivist accepts his values as self-evident and does not question them, because he “knows” that they are true. However, if we accept this assumption, it follows that a person has no choice in what his values are. The significance of that a priori nature of values is enormous. In essence, a person is forced to act according to his values (whatever they are), and in addition, any prioritization and refinement of values will be determined by a priori considerations, since we have no way to rationalize values. We have no way to decide between values other than the strong feeling that we know what is right to do. In essence, the entire process of making value decisions is a process that is forced upon us, and we as humans have no way to choose our values, since by definition it is impossible to give them an explanation. The entire process from beginning to end is a priori.
So, what is the meaning of free choice? After all, the outcome is forced upon me in terms of the values that were imposed on me a priori. What is the meaning of choice when the way you “choose” is given to you a priori? Ultimately, every action taken is determined by some desires and values, and they are all a priori for us! It’s like choosing according to someone else’s set of values, a set of values, which not only cannot be determined by you, but you also cannot determine the scale of values, since everything is a priori, even the way in which we refine our values. This is equivalent to a sophisticated robot, which has a certain scale of values and acts according to them.
I would be happy if the Rabbi could assist me in this important matter.
Thank you very much and good news.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you Rabbi, but I guess I didn't get to the bottom of your point.
You wrote “A person has a choice whether to act according to his values”, but in every dilemma there are two opposing values, for example, self-interest or fairness, and of course you can give more examples. In fact, the process of choosing between values is determined by the “scale” in which they are arranged. That is, a person always acts according to his values, even if he does something that he himself does not agree with. If it were contrary to his values, by definition he would not do the act. So a person always acts according to his values, as they are arranged in his scale of values.
The value decision is made according to the person's scale of values, but the scale of values itself is also given to us a priori. In fact, the scale of a priori values is imposed on a person, and in practice, he has no way to change it, since any change in the scale of values must stem from some arrangement, which is also from the scale. The practical conclusion is that the choice itself is already predetermined and embodied in the a priori scale of values. So your statement that the person chooses, or exercises discretion within a fixed and externally unchangeable scale of values is incomprehensible to me.
Again, thank you very much!
You didn't fall 🙂
You assume that a person always acts according to his values, but this is a mistake. This concerns the problem of ‘weakness of will’, and you can search here on the site for columns that have dealt with this.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
