Q&A: Free Choice
Free Choice
Question
Hello Rabbi Michael,
Don’t be afraid to read this even though it looks long. It’s only because I’m trying to be clear, but it should really go quickly over the eyes. Besides, later on I’ll write you some words of appreciation, so it’s worth your while to read. I don’t know whether appreciation from a nitpicker like me is enough of a temptation, but it’s what I’ve got.
I heard you in a lecture about free choice, where you said that a person who chooses evil—for example, decides to leave religion—from a certain perspective has an advantage over a person who is simply dragged along toward the good (stays religious without thinking why), because the first activated the power of choice, in which he resembles God, unlike the second who did not fulfill “and you shall choose” (true, you emphasized that this is not considered a formal commandment, because you can’t command it, or there’s no point in commanding it, etc. etc., but it is certainly some kind of expectation or realization of a value).
Obviously we’re talking about an advantage only “from a certain perspective,” and in terms of the actual deeds the second has the advantage, and yet I want to argue that even that “certain perspective” you spoke about is not an advantage at all.
I’ll give an analogy. A beautiful woman can use her beauty for good or for bad, and she can also not reveal herself at all and leave her beauty unused.
A woman’s beauty itself also symbolizes divine beauty and constitutes some kind of religious expression, or at least, if we want to be less mystical, it causes people to see and be impressed by the creativity and aesthetics of the supreme Artist.
Then someone will come along (you) and say that a woman who uses her beauty badly, from a certain perspective has an advantage over one who is completely modest (a member of the sack-cloth sect), for the last reason I mentioned.
But that’s a mistake, because the virtue of beauty revealed before our eyes as an art exhibition of God is indeed a virtue, but not a virtue of the woman! The woman is only the object God uses to display His abilities.
That is an act of God and not of the human being.
Therefore, even if something good comes of it, it cannot in any way be attributed to the woman.
Just as we would not praise the canvas on which the Mona Lisa was painted.
A person who chooses evil and thereby displays a divine capacity for choice is not doing anything by that; it’s only God saying, “Look what a sophisticated code I wrote.”
Suppose we manage to create a robot with artificial intelligence that has choice. The moment we see the robot choosing, would we pat its aluminum shoulder? Or would we shoot off all the fireworks over the inventor’s head?
One more clarification: in every commandment there are two virtues: (a) the act itself, (b) the intention to do it, which is an expression of obedience.
A commandment done by accident, for example, has only the first virtue. And someone who tried to do a commandment and messed it up has only the second virtue.
But our choosing fellow obviously did not have good intentions, and as for the act itself—that is, the choice through which the higher power was expressed—he didn’t perform it, since he merely served as a billboard.
So there is nothing left for him to glory in.
You, Rabbi Michael, symbolize something exalted in my eyes (what I promised, I promised), very, very wise; besides your enormous knowledge in so many fields, also the ability to pull from the reservoir, easily and at just the right moment, exactly what is needed.
Your burning truthfulness—you are not dazzled by brilliant arguments and accepted opinions, and you aren’t afraid to accept simple truths just because they are simple; you aren’t willing to let one of your conclusions interfere with the next one, even if they don’t fit together in any social category. Your ability to explain, your healthy mind, together with pleasantness and kindness that are hard to find in people as sharp and critical as you, make you my virtual guru.
If only I could get stranded with you on a desert island, where I’d pester you until you solved all my doubts.
Thank you, and I’m waiting for your response.
Michal
Answer
Hello Michal.
After temptations like those, how could I not read?
Your analogy isn’t correct. A person who chooses evil is himself making use of the power of choice. So it isn’t similar to a woman whose beauty was given to her by nature/God and who uses it badly. In my view, using the power of choice is itself a virtue, regardless of what one does with it. That is in contrast to someone who is dragged along and does not use that power.
In a commandment done by accident there is no virtue at all. Maybe something in the world gets repaired by it (and that too usually not), but it is not a virtue of the person. Again, the analogy is not similar.
Thanks for the compliments. (You just have to be careful about seclusion on the island 🙂 ).
Discussion on Answer
I definitely think that for a religious person there ought to be more choice-junctions (contrary to intuition, and perhaps also contrary to what happens in practice). But in practice it’s clear that atheists also choose. They have values they decided on, and they have to decide how and whether to implement them. It’s just that in their case we’re talking about a smaller number of values. But it’s really not just picking.
When I speak here about choosing evil, I mainly mean choosing something that in his opinion is good and right, while in my opinion it is evil. Like the choice to be secular.
I already wrote in the past that I wonder whether there can be a case of a person who chooses evil even though he knows it is evil. In situations of desire-versus-value dilemmas, apparently yes. In value-versus-value dilemmas, it seems to me not.
Michal, which lecture are we talking about? It sounds interesting. Do you have a link?
(By the way, there’s a phenomenon here that I’ve noticed several times, and maybe the wonderful editor will solve it—that shift-enters for going down a line without opening a new paragraph get deleted when you submit a question (not in comments. And there’s probably some other hidden variable too). So instead of the medium-sized partitions the writer wants, you get a mound that all gathers together, and the writer’s eyes see and fail.)
Free choice is a fiction.
I have never encountered a choice that is free.
There is always an interest in the choice.
If the Rabbi can demonstrate free choice, I would be very happy.
It seems you don’t understand what free choice is. I explained this at length in my book The Science of Freedom and in the article on free will. Of course there are interests and considerations, but within all those a person chooses his path. There’s nothing to demonstrate, because any action you can interpret your way or mine. See, for example, column 120.
Thank you for the answer, and I see that I didn’t understand you. I thought the virtue of “choosing” was because it constitutes a symbol or expression of God; now I see that you mean that choosing and not being dragged along is a good act in itself. What misled me was the introduction where you said in the name of Rabbi Kook that choice is what distinguishes man from beast, but apparently that wasn’t essential, and even if animals also had choice, for example, it would still be a good thing to choose.
So what I really asked is nonsense according to that.
But a new question has popped up for me (with your permission, this time free of charge): you said that “choosing” cannot be considered a commandment, because the moment God commands choosing, He is already assuming that there is an ability to choose, since you can’t command a robot.
And I ask: if it is a good thing in itself to do things (even bad ones) out of choice, then why not command it?
“Act out of choice and not out of being dragged along,” and this is a very practical question for all those who keep the commandments out of inertia and lose this virtue—why not command it?
*And to you, Shai Zilberstein* the lecture is called Gates of Will and it’s on YouTube.
*To Shulyata* absolutely! My post was shortened by forty centimeters and everything got compressed into a frightening blob of verbal fragments. When I hit send and saw the result, I screamed “shift” (just without the “f”).
Of course I don’t understand what free choice is. For that I need a demonstration, so one can point and say, “There, that is free choice,” and then I’ll be able to understand what is meant.
Right now, on the face of it, what you call “free choice” I call “choice,” and the word “free” adds nothing except a nice feeling of pride for the chooser.
Michal, “Act out of choice and not out of being dragged along,” and “You shall have no other gods before Me” are one and the same.
Michal,
There is no contradiction between the two formulations. To choose (regardless of what) is an action of value, and it also contains resemblance to the Holy One, blessed be He. And perhaps it has value because of that resemblance to the Holy One, blessed be He.
If animals had choice (and I’m not entirely sure they don’t), using it would still have value, and there would still be resemblance to the Holy One, blessed be He. What would be missing in such a situation is the uniqueness of man, but that doesn’t seem to me terribly essential.
The formulation you put in my mouth is not precise. My claim is that you cannot command choosing, because even that command itself must be carried out through choice. So there is a “whichever way you look at it” argument here: if a person does not choose, then commanding him to choose won’t help (because even that he will not choose to fulfill). And if he does choose, then there is no point or need to command him to do so.
Decisor,
As I wrote, it cannot be demonstrated. It’s all a matter of interpretation.
I would phrase it, “If animals have choice (and I’m not entirely sure they do).” One can ask what leads to the tendency to think they don’t have choice. On the side that there is choice (and I’m not entirely sure, etc.), I feel it even when I linger a few more minutes examining products on the supermarket website, and not only in a struggle between abstract principles or between a principle and an urge. Why think animals don’t have that? I’m assuming here that they certainly have consciousness, and they experience compassion and hatred and sadness just like we do (I’d like to phrase it as “or at least something very similar,” but I have no understanding of what “similar” means in this context. Maybe you can clarify that too, if in your view there is a likelihood of difference even in “instinctive” experiences that are without choice). Empirically, that presumably can’t be confirmed or weakened.
I don’t know how to state arguments either way. It is commonly accepted that they don’t, but that really isn’t necessary. I think plants have no choice, and lower life forms don’t either. The question is from what developmental stage there is choice. I don’t know. As for their having emotions like compassion and so on—maybe (I don’t know). But that doesn’t mean they have choice.
Animals have no consciousness at all.
Does a hungry goat bleat the way a tambourine makes noise when it’s struck?
There is no difference between a suffering goat and a suffering person. It’s just that a person also has consciousness. The desire to survive does not depend on consciousness, and that is the essence of every living creature. Consciousness is not about survival but about observing what is happening.
Decisor, meaning the psychophysical problem does exist in animals too?
By the way, if I may, honorable Rabbi,
Is your name Miki or Michi, with a soft khaf?
No. The psychophysical problem arises because of consciousness.
Michal, I usually write Michi. It’s a nickname, and there are no rules for it.
But the island is virtual 🙂 And nowadays, in the age of Big Brother, there’s nothing that isn’t supervised :). (Though still, people who are lax are seemingly not considered a guard.)
Besides, even apart from the praise, the very fact that there’s some woman here on this male site already creates a temptation to hear her thoughts.
In any case, Rabbi, don’t you think that a person who remains religious has to make many more choices over time? After all, he stays in choosing and not just picking. By contrast, the atheist maybe makes only one big choice, but also the last one… so it’s not clear what this advantage is that you’re talking about.
And besides, you used the term choosing evil, but how can a person *choose* evil? Seemingly he’s just rolling down a slope.