Free decision is absurd

[STT]

That doesn’t quite work. Two people can look at the same set of facts, both act rationally, but come to different conclusions and courses of action, perhaps even diametrically opposite. If a universe that is rational is inherently deterministic, these two rational people should have been determined to come to the same conclusion. But they don’t.

That is not possible. A set of facts always brings two people into same conclusion.

So here we must either deny that that they were both acting rationally, right?

That is not correct. Two individual under exactly the same circumstances reach to the same conclusion.

So then one of them, in your terms, is making free choice. But is it not free choice to choose rationalism?

We can of course choose to rationalism.

Separate argument: without morality or other initial assumptions, on what do you base rationality?

Rationality is about giving a direction to our act to reach a good end. Good end are feelings, emotions which derive us to achieve or obtain something.

 

[StephenBales]

That is not possible. A set of facts always brings two people into same conclusion.

Quite a bold assumption. Can you prove it? Or is this unfounded conjecture?

Good end are feelings, emotions which derive us to achieve or obtain something.

What do I want to achieve? I want to crush my enemies, to see them driven before me, and to hear the lamentations of their women! This will give me a good end feeling (for the sake of argument, but not really). So I’m gonna live like a Viking, going out into the world pillaging and destroying, as they did, because they’ve shown it to be an effective method.
…
Am I being rational? If not, why? If so, why would someone else, whose good end feeling—which is for all intents and purposes identical to mine—would be achieved in philanthropy, be categorized as being not rational? And before you say they are being rational, by your arguments, they can’t be. Because if both I, Viking man, and this philanthropist are both being rational, we must come to the same conclusion. Right?

 

[STT]

Quite a bold assumption. Can you prove it? Or is this unfounded conjecture?

That is evident to me. Look at science and math for example.

What do I want to achieve? I want to crush my enemies, to see them driven before me, and to hear the lamentations of their women! This will give me a good end feeling (for the sake of argument, but not really). So I’m gonna live like a Viking, going out into the world pillaging and destroying, as they did, because they’ve shown it to be an effective method.
…
Am I being rational? If not, why? If so, why would someone else, whose good end feeling—which is for all intents and purposes identical to mine—would be achieved in philanthropy, be categorized as being not rational? And before you say they are being rational, by your arguments, they can’t be. Because if both I, Viking man, and this philanthropist are both being rational, we must come to the same conclusion. Right?

I already discuss this in OP: “There could be a conflict in personal interest and society when a decision is involved. Nevertheless a decision which is in favor of a person interest and is against society’s interest is not objectively wrong.” The majority rules.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

Is free decision an actual term or this something you made up? What do you mean by absurd?

 

[STT]

Is free decision an actual term or this something you made up?

No, I didn’t made up anything. Free will in fact is the ability to make free decision.

What do you mean by absurd?

Absurd: wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.

 

[Nyx]

Rationality doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It is influenced by past experiences, feelings, fears, beliefs, etc. So, yes, you can come to two different conclusions.

OK, say you have two teenagers. Both are encouraged to try smoking by their friends. Both know smoking can increase the chance to suffer of cancer, strokes, infertility, etc, etc. Saw the warnings in books, TV, newspaper. Both know their parents will be against it. On a plus side they knew for some time (like minutes) their friends will be impressed. So one thinks of all this and say- “Ehh, no, not worth it” while the second think of all this but also has a higher need for social acceptance and friendship so decides that being “cool” and have his/her friends treat him/her like one of them is more important.

They both knew the fact and the cost-benefit of their choice but they decided differently.

Or say they participate in one of those experiments: all people are given the same choice. You can play a quiz “safely” and win a certain amount of money or play risky and win much more or lose everything. People choose differently- partly based on personality traits, culture or gender (by this I mean the learnt social roles and expectations).

They all decided rationally. But various variables were involved even when given the same set of facts.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

So are you saying that free decision is absurd or that people use their free will to do absurd things? (Some other third option)

 

[StephenBales]

Quite a bold assumption. Can you prove it? Or is this unfounded conjecture?

Science and math are totally different than human behavior. Those are determined. But even your inclusion of free choice as an option shows that human behavior, isn’t. Pointing to one thing that is deterministic does not show that another thing is also.

Am I being rational? If not, why? If so, why would someone else, whose good end feeling—which is for all intents and purposes identical to mine—would be achieved in philanthropy, be categorized as being not rational? And before you say they are being rational, by your arguments, they can’t be. Because if both I, Viking man, and this philanthropist are both being rational, we must come to the same conclusion. Right?

Now hang on, that’s not what I’m asking. What you answered is how we reconcile discrepancy between individual choice and society’s rules. What I asked is if they were both being rational even though they came to different conclusions. If they both are, how did they come to different conclusions? If one of them is not, then why is one not but the other is?

 

[STT]

Rationality doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It is influenced by past experiences, feelings, fears, beliefs, etc. So, yes, you can come to two different conclusions.

OK, say you have two teenagers. Both are encouraged to try smoking by their friends. Both know smoking can increase the chance to suffer of cancer, strokes, infertility, etc, etc. Saw the warnings in books, TV, newspaper. Both know their parents will be against it. On a plus side they knew for some time (like minutes) their friends will be impressed. So one thinks of all this and say- “Ehh, no, not worth it” while the second think of all this but also has a higher need for social acceptance and friendship so decides that being “cool” and have his/her friends treat him/her like one of them is more important.

They both knew the fact and the cost-benefit of their choice but they decided differently.

Or say they participate in one of those experiments: all people are given the same choice. You can play a quiz “safely” and win a certain amount of money or play risky and win much more or lose everything. People choose differently- partly based on personality traits, culture or gender (by this I mean the learnt social roles and expectations).

They all decided rationally. But various variables were involved even when given the same set of facts.

People who comes to different rational choices are different. I didn’t say that people under different circumstances reach to the same rational choice. I clearly defined rational choice in OP: “Rational decisions belong to category in which we use our intellect to decide for a good end. Good end is toward satisfying our nature, liking something, feeling for something, thinking that something is appropriate, etc”.

 

[STT]

Science and math are totally different than human behavior. Those are determined. But even your inclusion of free choice as an option shows that human behavior, isn’t. Pointing to one thing that is deterministic does not show that another thing is also.

Yes, human behavior is not determined because we are free to choose. Otherwise two person with the same gene who exactly grown up under the same condition always choose the same thing rationally.

Now hang on, that’s not what I’m asking. What you answered is how we reconcile discrepancy between individual choice and society’s rules. What I asked is if they were both being rational even though they came to different conclusions. If they both are, how did they come to different conclusions? If one of them is not, then why is one not but the other is?

Yes, they are both rational although they make different decision. Rationality is affected by perspective you believe and your character.

 

[StephenBales]

This is getting absurd. Nothing new is being presented in this thread, this is an ancient argument that’s been going on for centuries, and you won’t give answers long enough to actually explain yourself, only vague nothings to lure someone into arguing further and further minute arguments.

I think I’ll exit now. The conversation between free will and determinism has been going on for centuries; you claim to be rational, and present yourself as knowing the argument. If you know the argument, and you are rational, you’re well equipped to decide for yourself, by your standard.
Happy seeking. I’ll be praying for you. May God bless you.

EDIT: Before you respond snarkily, I’m leaving neither out of fear, nor fatigue, but I don’t think this is going anywhere.

 

[po18guy]

Oversimplified. What appears to be rational may actually be free, and vice versa.

The lack of reasoning in “free” decision making simply means that it is unreasonable.

Perhaps this translates to absurd in your world.

 

[STT]

This is getting absurd. Nothing new is being presented in this thread, this is an ancient argument that’s been going on for centuries, and you won’t give answers long enough to actually explain yourself, only vague nothings to lure someone into arguing further and further minute arguments.

I think I’ll exit now. The conversation between free will and determinism has been going on for centuries; you claim to be rational, and present yourself as knowing the argument. If you know the argument, and you are rational, you’re well equipped to decide for yourself, by your standard.
Happy seeking. I’ll be praying for you. May God bless you.

What is absurd? I think I am missing something.

 

[STT]

Oversimplified. What appears to be rational may actually be free, and vice versa.

No, we can make clear distinction between rational and free decision.

The lack of reasoning in “free” decision making simply means that it is unreasonable .

Perhaps this translates to absurd in your world.

To act against rationality is absurd to me.

 

[po18guy]

How does one know?

1. In the self
2. In the other

 

[SeriousQuestion]

Free decision can also act rationally.

 

[STT]

How does one know?

1. In the self
2. In the other

How does one know what? How does one know the clear distinction between rational and free decision?

 

[STT]

What is free reason?

 

[MPat]

It is free when you disregard rationality. Your free choice could however be aligned by rationality.

The antonym of “rational” is “non-rational” (or “irrational”), not “free”. The antonym of “free” is “coerced”, not “rational”.

Speaking of which: what about coerced decisions?

Have you considered them?

Just jump of window and kill yourself.

Someone who commits suicide has a further end which he sees as good, for example, ending of suffering.

That’s the point: everyone makes decisions trying to reach an end that is seen as good. Sometimes the decisions fail to achieve that end, sometimes they achieve it a the cost that is too high, maybe sometimes the end is not really good, but only seen as good. But the end which is seen as good is still somewhere.

You can observe this through introspection.

Really?

You expect introspection to give you all those nice labels: “done by intellect”, “done by will”?

I didn’t say so. I am wondering how you could deduce that from what I said.

Of course you didn’t.

But you didn’t even mention different persons making decisions, and that’s precisely what my question was about.

 

[STT]

The antonym of “rational” is “non-rational” (or “irrational”), not “free”. The antonym of “free” is “coerced”, not “rational”.

Yes, the free decision toward bad end is irrational but we can make it.

Speaking of which: what about coerced decisions?

Have you considered them?

Yes, that defines the situation.

Someone who commits suicide has a further end which he sees as good, for example, ending of suffering.

Yes, but what if you love your life? That is what I call it absurd decision.

Really?

You expect introspection to give you all those nice labels: “done by intellect”, “done by will”?

No, I can through introspection know that I can decide freely and I can decide rationally. Will by definition is not involved in rational decision since it gives us the ability to decide free.

Of course you didn’t.

But you didn’t even mention different persons making decisions, and that’s precisely what my question was about.

Different person might make different decisions on a situation depending on their characters and worldviews.