Free to choose?
Freedom of speech, freedom of access to information, freedom from persecution, human dignity, right to have private property and most other human rights are based on a simple presumption. An adult individual can make a rational choice regarding what is better or worse for him. That choice will be inherently better for him than the one the state could make instead of him, for him.
Individual picks and chooses based on information he has available, his intelligence and his desires. His desires are by nature of things, irrational. It is impossible to rationally explain why you love someone or why you prefer chocolate to vanilla ice cream. However, the choice itself is rational in nature. You choose, based on the information you have available, rationally, which courses of action will be able to satisfy which of your desires. Based on the subjective perceived value of those desires, which is fundamentally irrational, you make a rational choice to satisfy the desire you find the most important. Now the ranking of those desires is different for every individual. Furthermore you cannot really tell in a quantified way that your lover is 3 units better than vanilla ice cream. It just doesn’t work like that. Since it cannot be measured and statistically described the choice has to be left to the individual. Even with much greater cognitive powers of the society as a whole compared to an individual and possible access to vast amounts of information, society simply cannot know how much you love somebody. Therefore the choice is yours. And since you are the one making the choice, you are also the one responsible for the result.
Rational choice is not the same as freedom of choice, though. If you are tortured and in great pain you’re willing to make a deal you would other ways not make. That is rational. The money you gave them so they stopped torturing you was worth less to you than making the pain stop. But few would claim that the choice was free.
The role of state intervention is therefore to facilitate an environment where equal opportunities are given to everyone to choose as freely as possible, without that right infringing on the same right of others. In other words, every adult individual should have as equal as possible set of initial choices available to him as any other individual, while that set of choices should be as wide as possible. Individual subjective choice should only be limited when it infringes on someone else’s right to make the same choice.
It is therefore up to the state to allow for free transfer of information and prevent undue influences on choices of individuals so they can choose freely according to their set of desires. It is by no means the role of the state to tell us what we should desire, because it is objectively better for us and more productive. Maybe I do not want to be objectively as productive as possible. Maybe I prefer dignity or love.
Individual picks and chooses based on information he has available, his intelligence and his desires. His desires are by nature of things, irrational. It is impossible to rationally explain why you love someone or why you prefer chocolate to vanilla ice cream. However, the choice itself is rational in nature. You choose, based on the information you have available, rationally, which courses of action will be able to satisfy which of your desires. Based on the subjective perceived value of those desires, which is fundamentally irrational, you make a rational choice to satisfy the desire you find the most important. Now the ranking of those desires is different for every individual. Furthermore you cannot really tell in a quantified way that your lover is 3 units better than vanilla ice cream. It just doesn’t work like that. Since it cannot be measured and statistically described the choice has to be left to the individual. Even with much greater cognitive powers of the society as a whole compared to an individual and possible access to vast amounts of information, society simply cannot know how much you love somebody. Therefore the choice is yours. And since you are the one making the choice, you are also the one responsible for the result.
Rational choice is not the same as freedom of choice, though. If you are tortured and in great pain you’re willing to make a deal you would other ways not make. That is rational. The money you gave them so they stopped torturing you was worth less to you than making the pain stop. But few would claim that the choice was free.
The role of state intervention is therefore to facilitate an environment where equal opportunities are given to everyone to choose as freely as possible, without that right infringing on the same right of others. In other words, every adult individual should have as equal as possible set of initial choices available to him as any other individual, while that set of choices should be as wide as possible. Individual subjective choice should only be limited when it infringes on someone else’s right to make the same choice.
It is therefore up to the state to allow for free transfer of information and prevent undue influences on choices of individuals so they can choose freely according to their set of desires. It is by no means the role of the state to tell us what we should desire, because it is objectively better for us and more productive. Maybe I do not want to be objectively as productive as possible. Maybe I prefer dignity or love.
posted by Sergej at 3:07 PM
8 Comments:
Šuš, ful, ampak res ful, lepo napisano.
An adult individual can make a rational choice regarding what is better or worse for him.
This is simply false. If you claim that it isn't false, you are merely employing words such as "freedom" and "rational" in an extremely hypocritical way.
Consider a fat person who keeps eating more food than they need, and therefore keeps getting fatter. Rationally they know damned well that this is bad for them, that it makes them fat, that it harms their health, and that they don't really want any of these things. And yet they can't resist the temptation to keep on overeating. It's ridiculous to say that this person rationally decided that stuffing themselves with food is better for them than avoiding being fat, unhealthy, ugly, unfit, etc. Nobody rationally makes such a choice; they are merely unable to resist the temptation.
To say that this choice was nevertheless rational is really just a circular argument: you are basically claiming that simply because a person made that choice, the choice must have been ipso facto rational.
And this is why I am a staunch opponent of the freedom of choice. This so-called freedom really just condemns me to a life of struggling against my temptations --- which sucks in a major way. It makes one miserable rather than happy. It would be much better to be rid of this trouble and have the state regulate things so that one wouldn't need to make unpleasant choices all the time.
But few would claim that the choice was free.
Therefore nobody can make a really free choice, as long as they have a stomach attached to their body and aren't indepdently wealthy. Hunger sooner or later forces them to make rational but patently unfree choices, e.g. getting a job (even though they don't really want one) just so that they can put something in their stomachs. This is really just torture of a different shade. This is why the state should intervent to provide everyone with a pleasant standard of living --- only then is any sort of freedom of choice even imaginable. And of course this means not a weak state such as your libertarian-leaning ideas would seem to call for, but a strong one that intervenes in as many spheres of life as possible.
If fatness, as you described it, is a medical condition that causes addiction by altering brain chemistry or hormone levels, then indeed such choice is not rational. In such cases, help should be available.
People in general, who do not have such medical conditions, freely choose whether they want to get fatter or whether they want to work on it. It might not be objectively the best choice for them, not what the majority would choose. Their desires, however, are not objective, but subjective. An extra meal brings them more pleasure than being a fit individual. That is why they choose that meal. Choice is therefore rational.
It is not rational simply because the person made the choice. The rationality derives from the fact that the person chose the path that better satisfied his desires. He chose the path that made him happier. State can, as I said, try to provide information to him, but ultimately, the choice should be his to make. I fear the day when my menu is state prescribed.
Regarding temptations, it only "makes" you fight your temptations because you want to fight them, as that satisfies your desires better. You can give in, if you believe that it will make you happier. If state prescribed a list of "temptations" that are illegal according to your standards, you would be the one forcing other people to be miserable by not allowing them to choose what makes them happy. Your path forces people into conformity to majority and takes away individual choice, in short, it’s totalitarian.
Don't get me wrong, I want people to be fed. I want people to have access to education. I would not take basic food and shelter away from anyone. That’s a question of dignity. But in the end the choice to fill their stomach with good food is theirs to make. It is not completely free, as no choices are, if your basic choice is that you want to keep on living. But just because someone is too lazy to get a job, and eat decent food, that doesn't give them the right to take away what others, who chose to work, have produced, does it?
The rationality derives from the fact that the person chose the path that better satisfied his desires. He chose the path that made him happier.
But he didn't, that's the point! He knew damned well all along that it will really lead to a few short happy moments while he is stuffing himself with food, followed by a long time of misery when he realizes again how fat he is and how many unpleasant consequences this has for him. It's silly to pretend that this is some kind of rational choice or decision. Nobody really values so highly those few moments of pleasure they feel while they are stuffing themselves. They want to avoid overeating, but they just can't bring themselves to do it.
Regarding temptations, it only "makes" you fight your temptations because you want to fight them, as that satisfies your desires better. You can give in, if you believe that it will make you happier.
It will make me happier in the short term but much more miserable in the long term. The problem is that being rationally aware of this doesn't help at all --- resisting the temptation is still unpleasant. That's why I'd prefer for the temptation to be taken away altogether.
you would be the one forcing other people to be miserable by not allowing them to choose what makes them happy.
On the contrary, I would be helping them to choose what makes them happy. For example, I for one would be terribly glad if somebody helped me avoid chocolate by e.g. forbidding the sale of chocolate altogether (or at least forbidding the sale of chocolate to me). It would be much easier, more pleasant, and less painful than the way it is now, when I have to prevent myself from pigging out on chocolate.
But just because someone is too lazy to get a job, and eat decent food, that doesn't give them the right to take away what others, who chose to work, have produced, does it?
I most certainly think it does --- especially given the ease with which, thanks to modern technology, a sufficient amount of things can be grown and produced even by a relatively small number of people. But needless to say, I don't expect you to agree with it.
Your arguments are all based on the idea that the same things will make people happy. That is simply not true. We are not all equal. You'd be happy if chocolate was illegal, I'd be sad, as I eat it now and then, I like it, but have no owerwhelming desire for it. What gives you the right to forbid me that choice? Why is your happiness more important and better for the society?
Furthermore, when people choose momentary happiness as opposed to long term "suffering" and they know it in advance, they just compare the present value of future suffering with present benefits. Very rational. It's like taking a loan. People have different time preferences. They maximize their happiness accordingly.
okay,
this topic might not be very alive anymore, but i just have to say something. given the fact ill-advised refers to medical issues so much..:)
ill advised. i think you are fashist. because of people like you, inquisition was invented.
a) fatness and other vices. not all people want to be thin. not all people want to be healthy. not all people want to live till they ninety and die of old age/get a brain tumor at the age of 50 for NO apparent reason and die at 52, despite the fact they lead a perfect, vice-free life. some people just don`t give a shit. others simply don`t have that vigorous lust for long life. others do.
and more to the point, what the hell makes you think that the state is so almighty, that they have the wisdom to decide what is the best for me. what if i don`t want to live to see how oseoporosis will take the best of me, how my brains will fall madly in love with Mr Alzheimer, etc and thus become a chain smoker, party animal - you know the famous : live fast die young ...
that is the beauty of life. and democracy to a certain point. to be able to do with your life whatever you choose. because if you really think about it, that is the only thing that is in the end really yours.
personal note to ILL ADVISED:
ill advised, i think you have a food obsession.and supposedly chocolate would be made illegal i am POSITIVE that you would find another dish that would drive you mad. if you want to eliminate every vice there is, i suggest you start studying physics, invent a time machine and travel back to Sparta. i meant to wish you a good and pleasant trip back in time&and "have a good time" , but that would be just plain stupid, because you wouldn`t have a good time. you would be bored and repressed.
"The money you gave them so they stopped torturing you was worth less to you than making the pain stop. But few would claim that the choice was free."
But what if one is victim of oneself? Are choices that one makes under such circumstances free or not?
What if I decide not to work. Soon I will lack money to pay the rent and I will be evicted. I will be a victim of my own decision though. In your opinion should the state intervene to protect my "freedom"?
Surely I can claim that the choice to work is not free but rational. I MUST work (unless government forces somebody to work for me.) In this case (working for myself) coercion does not come from society but from my own needs.
You are indeed free from yourself, unless you're under an influence of a brain altering substance.
You can freely choose whether you want to work or not, and indeed, state should not let you die, if you chose not to work, not to protect you from yourself, but to give the same protection to everyone in case they find themselves in a situation where they did not choose not to work, but lost their job and assets due to some previous bad choices, or accidents.
In essence, however, that choice is free. You freely choose to work. Work is only a "need", because you first decided you want to live. That, too, is a free choice.
Post a Comment
<< Home