Free choice / discretion
Hello Rabbi,
I understand that you believe in free choice, meaning that humans can (not always) exercise discretion to choose how to act.
But what does the concept of “judgment” mean? According to what you write in your books, it is some kind of spiritual entity that receives input from our brain and senses and makes its own assessment and causes our body to act in a certain way.
It sounds like that entity is also bound by the laws of causality. If it receives inputs from the brain and determines the output accordingly, then it is deterministic. If it is possible for the same input to give different results, then it is random and there is no discretion here.
In fact, the concept of discretion by definition is deterministic, because I weight the inputs to output using the data I have (a strictly deterministic process).
The question is, how is the concept of discretion actually non-causal (=non-deterministic)?
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.
I saw what you wrote in column 175:
“On what basis is this libertarian decision made? On no basis. It is a creation out of thin air, just like the value decision. If there was a reason here that caused this result, or if there was a basis on which a calculation was conducted that led to this conclusion, then there was no decision here but a mechanical calculation”
That is, if we say I have a pizza and a hamburger in front of me, and I want to choose whether to eat this or that and I choose pizza, is it because it just happened?
If later they ask me why I chose pizza, is there any point in asking? After all, I chose it just happened.
I would also appreciate clarification on what is meant by the fact that the environment and education, etc. affect the result (if with their help I changed my choice, then they are the reason, if not, then they are not the reason.)
In any case, if in the end I chose because of something without a reason, how can this judgment be justified?
Thank you.
Yair. Just so you know that a rabbi doesn't have the option to believe that there is no free choice. He is forced to think that there is. Otherwise, all his theories will be ruined. And it is better to insist that there is free choice than to disrupt age-old theories.
I explained to you that you could ask the same thing about a value choice. What does discretion involve? If a person chooses to feed his mother and not go out to fight the Nazis, is it done out of thin air or out of nowhere? To me, there is a choice here on a scale of values, and from there the practical calculation is made. The choice on the scale of values is out of thin air. The same is true for discretion. If I have before me a pizza or a hamburger with values, or a scientific dilemma (which theory is correct), I must consider in my mind which is more reasonable. I do this in light of various considerations of reasonableness that themselves are freely chosen (i.e. not dictated to me), just as the values are freely chosen. I chose for a purpose and not because of a reason. This is the difference between choice and indeterminism. I have expanded on this in my books on the science of freedom (and also in an article here on the site).
Regarding the influence of the environment, I really don't understand your question. There is a mountain and a valley around me, and I choose to go up the mountain (because there is a beautiful view) or go down the valley (because it is easier). Is the presence of the mountain the reason that caused my decision? That's nonsense. I made my decision freely, but the existence of a mountain or a valley influenced the decision. Under different circumstances I might (!) have decided differently.
Regarding a scientific dilemma, people usually have an intuition that Model A is more correct than Model B. This intuition is not the result of any judgment, but simply an understanding that comes naturally. Like the intuition that the principle of causality or induction is true even though there is no conclusive proof for it. Where is the judgment here?
Not everywhere there is discretion, but there are situations where there is discretion. Einstein assumed that God does not play dice and ruled out quantum theory (or its common interpretations). This is discretion that has nothing to do with empiricism. On the contrary, he insisted on pushing against the empirical evidence.
Following on from this question, I remember that you once claimed that you agree with Hardabz's statement that a person is coerced into his opinions. That is, if a person adopts a certain worldview regarding religion or something else, then there is no reason to judge him for it because he is coerced into thinking the way he thinks. But here you claim that there is a certain freedom of discretion. If so, then why would a person be considered coerced into his opinions? Why can't he be judged for condemnation or praise based on his intellectual discretion?
First, even in a value-based choice and not in a factual judgment, there are situations of rape (an irresistible urge). Beyond that, even if a person has the knowledge, sometimes the data in his hands does not allow him to reach the right decision, and this does not depend on his judgment. A person will not be judged for not having come up with Einstein's theory of relativity on his own, even though it is a matter of judgment and thought.
And what about the situations in which a person had the opportunity to reach the right decision and he failed in his judgment? Is he worthy of being judged for that?
If he failed in his judgment because he was negligent, he is guilty (it is as if it were an accident and not as if it were rape). If it was intentional and conscious because of his nature, then he is wilful.
So, are secularists nowadays considered to be misguided or coercive?
It depends on who. It's hard to make a clear distinction. If there is a person who, given the data before him, has no chance of reaching the correct conclusion and, in fact, has no chance of even thinking about searching in the religious direction, he is a rapist. An extreme mistake is a rape even in the Talmud (see, for example, Shavuot 25, Really Not Extreme, and more).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer