Q&A: On the Apriority of Values and the Implications for the Meaning of Free Choice
On the Apriority of Values and the Implications for the Meaning of Free Choice
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In the article "The Arbitrariness of the Will in Leibowitz's Thought – Positivism and Pluralism," you wrote that the positivist takes 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 regarding what his values are. The meaning of this apriority of values is enormous. Essentially, a person is compelled to act according to his values, whatever they may be, and in addition, every prioritization and refinement of values is 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 value-based decision-making is a process imposed upon us, and we as human beings have no way to choose our values, since by definition it is impossible to give them an explanation. The whole process, from beginning to end, is a priori.
If so, what is the meaning of free choice? After all, the result is forced on me in terms of the values that were imposed on me a priori. What is the meaning of choice when the way in which you "choose" is given to you a priori? In the end, every act that is done is determined by some desires and values, and all of them are a priori for us! It is like choosing according to someone else's set of values—a set of values that not only can you not determine what it is, you also cannot determine the ranking of values, since everything is a priori, even the way we refine our values. This is equivalent to a sophisticated robot that has a certain scale of values and acts according to them.
I would be happy if the Rabbi could help me with this important issue.
Thank you very much, and may we hear good news
Answer
The issue of choice is discussed at length in my book The Science of Freedom. Briefly: first of all, beyond the choice of the values themselves, a person has a choice whether to act according to his values. The values themselves are usually agreed upon and are not determined by the person. He only recognizes that these are the correct values. Sometimes, within the accepted framework, he exercises judgment and decides.
Discussion on Answer
Indeed, you haven't 🙂
You assume that a person always acts according to his values, but that is a mistake. This relates to the problem of "weakness of will," and you can search here on the site for articles that dealt with it.
Thank you, Rabbi, but apparently I still have not fully understood your view.
You wrote, "a person has a choice whether to act according to his values," but in every dilemma there are two conflicting values—for example, self-interest or fairness—and of course many more examples could be given. In essence, the process of choosing between values is determined by the "scale" on 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 on 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. Essentially, the a priori scale of values is imposed on the person, and in practice he has no way to change it, because any change in the scale of values must stem from some value, which is also part of that same scale. The practical conclusion is that the choice itself is already predetermined and embedded in the a priori scale of values. So your statement that a person chooses, or exercises judgment within a fixed scale of values that cannot be externally changed, is not clear to me.
Again, thank you very much!