Q&A: An Argument Against Libertarianism
An Argument Against Libertarianism
Question
I recently heard an argument against libertarianism, and it goes like this:
- A thing that has a cause is deterministic.
- A thing that has no cause is random.
- Everything either has a cause or does not have a cause (the statement is true by virtue of its form).
- Free choice is neither random nor deterministic, and not both random and deterministic.
- Therefore: there is no free choice.
Seemingly, the answer would be that this is a false dichotomy, and that there is a state of free choice that is neither randomness nor determinism (not elections in Syria and not in Switzerland) — that is how the Rabbi resolved van Inwagen’s dilemma argument. But in truth, if a choice is neither caused nor uncaused, then it does not exist (the law of the excluded middle).
What does our teacher and rabbi think?
Answer
Our teacher thinks exactly what is written and explained where you read these things. Either there is a cause or there isn’t. But if there is no cause, that does not mean it is random. Under the absence of a cause, two different possibilities fall: choice and randomness (Switzerland and Israel).
Discussion on Answer
You mean to ask what the difference is between randomness and choice (both are without a cause). I explained this there at great length. I discussed an explanation in terms of purpose as opposed to cause and absence of cause (randomness). I talked about judgment and deliberation, etc.
If there is no cause, then what is the difference between randomness and causality in the *mechanism* of choice? I don’t remember this being addressed in your book The Science of Freedom (in the chapter on the phenomenology of libertarianism)…