Q&A: Determinism and Rationality
Determinism and Rationality
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Following up on your latest column, I asked you why you don’t see a connection between determinism and anti-rationality.
I didn’t understand the flaw in the theory that rationality = considerations of utility.
I think that only if you are a determinist will you find a flaw in this, because every mistake as a result of which you would judge a specific person’s act to be irrational is only because it conflicts with your own private considerations. (Like the contradictions Kahneman presents in his books, where people fail to respond correctly and in his view this compels the claim that the human being is not rational.) All human actions have already been calculated by the holy statistics.
But the accompanying result is that both the seemingly rational human actions (System 2, in Kahneman’s language) and those that are not are all part of the statistics, which are deterministic. There is no rationality at all in this approach, because System 2 is not necessarily the right act or the right thought to think. It is merely a system for in-depth thinking. There is no reason to prefer an act that is not accompanied by an internal contradiction, because I do not understand what the problem with contradiction is according to a deterministic approach. Everything is necessary anyway, so if we contradict ourselves too, what’s the problem?
If you are a libertarian, every act is entirely rational and accompanied by judgment, even if hidden (and also in an unintentional sin or an intentional one, but we already argued about that last week).
P.S. If I write unclearly, does that mean I have Asperger’s 😉 ?
Answer
You do indeed write very unclearly, unrelated to diagnoses.
As I already wrote to you, I do not see even the slightest connection between the claim that rationality is action aimed at achieving your goals and a deterministic position. You freely choose your goals, and from that point on you act optimally to achieve them.
As for the question whether it is worthwhile or even possible to talk with a determinist, my answer is yes. If the world really were deterministic, then there would not be much point in discourse. But if, as I think, the world is not like that, then if someone mistakenly thinks it is, one can talk to him and persuade him to get out of that view.
Discussion on Answer
Fine, now this is a completely different tune. In a deterministic picture there is no room for any decision, and of course no judgment either, so clearly there is also no room for a rational or irrational decision. That is not what was being discussed here. It is not connected to rationality. Irrational decisions are not made there either.
And in a non-deterministic picture?
What about 1 and 2?
I do not understand everything that is going on here. I explained everything.
I will try to ask again clearly, and sorry for the long-windedness.
My claim was that free choice entails rationality, whereas on the other hand determinism entails a lack of definition regarding the question of rationality and irrationality.
I think that if you believe in determinism, we cannot attribute rationality to your actions, because there is not really action directed toward achieving your goals; you are a deterministic continuation of other actions. In addition, every action you perform is only one possibility out of the existence of other actions. If by chance you happened upon the wiser action, that is merely a statistical probability that: a. among all people, you performed this action; b. among all the actions you performed, the action that fulfilled your goals came out.
There is no rationality and no irrationality, because there are no values according to determinism.
With belief in free choice, I think there is reason to believe in utilitarian rationality, because by my definition free choice entails responsibility for intellectual inferences that lead to actions. Responsibility that applies even if you made a mistake.
Mistakes arise from relative utilitarian considerations.
1. Perhaps because you define an intellectual mistake as coercion, you do not define rationality as utility considerations, and that is actually the practical difference between us?
2. Do you think that according to your approach you are able to define utilitarian rationality?
3. Do you agree with the conclusion that follows from my remarks about determinism (at least according to my approach, in which there is no coercion)?
Thank you very much