We first need to distinguish that there are two type of decisions, rational and free. 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. 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. Now, let’s look at free decision. Free decision does not necessary for an good end. In fact we can freely decide for a wrong end with no specific reason. Therefore free decision is absurd.
Good tree with good fruit - or bad tree with rotten fruit.
You decide. Which you want ?
He who doesn’t gather - scatters.
So you agree that free decision is absurd?
To be able to make a rational choice, you first need to be able to make a choice at all. So free choice in itself is not absurd.
I already explain rational versus free choice. I agree that rational choice is deterministic but that is alright. Free choice in another hand is not deterministic but it is problematic, it is absurd. You don’t need to be free in order to do things, make rational choice.
Distinction without a difference.
Are you claiming that rational decisions cannot, by definition, be for anything but good ends?
If so, then are you claiming that free decisions, by definition, cannot be for good ends?
If free decisions can be for good ends, then they can be rational. And therefore, no difference is found in the distinction you’re attempting to make.
It could be both good and bad.
They are different. We could even make free decision without intervention of rationality. We could act deterministically and decide rationally.
In your description of “rational,” what moves us to a decision? Is it based on some movement intrinsic to the person? Or is the person being moved about by planets, gods, or just a deterministic series of events (such as a rock rolling down a hill due to a tremor in the earth or other physical but non-intelligent event)?
What about decisions that we make rationally, but are mistaken about their goodness? Aren’t they rational, yet not good?
So, a decision can be both free and rational? How does that work?
You need to define ‘free decision’ more precisely. Are you simply talking about a decision that does not involve rational thought?
What makes you think that those are the only two possibilities?
No. All decisions without exception seek some good end. If you want to discuss “rational” decisions, you have to consider if the end is going to be achieved and at what cost.
And, of course, it is will that makes choices, not intellect.
No. Free decisions of Mr. X are the decisions that Mr. X makes without coercion.
Try to think if you’d be able to distinguish free decision of Mr. X from decision Mr. X was forced to make by Mr. Y.
For that matter, can you distinguish decision made by Mr. X and decision made by Mr. Y? Does your “system” allow that?
The situation is what move us to a rational decision, the situation being an external stimuli or a chain of thought, feeling.
For that you need to rationally inspect the situation and then freely decide. Your free choice is aligned with your rational choice in the case that you are thinking.
You can even disregard rationality in a free decision.
So the actions of an unfree, rational actor, are the same as a boulder being caused to roll down a hill? Is the boulder acting rationally, then?
You either consider rationality or you disregard it. Therefore there are only two options.
No. You can freely choose a bad end.
You consider the cost and all other things which define a situation under consideration when a rational decision is involved.
No, will makes free choice. Intellect makes rational choice which is pretty deterministic.
Yes, my system allows that. Free will could be for a good or bad end given the situation.
Yes. It is pretty deterministic. We do it most of the times.
OK. So, your distinction really falls apart, then. If the distinguishing factor of rational decisions is ‘goodness’, but there are rational decisions that aren’t good… then ‘rational decision’ is a false distinction.
OK… so ‘free’ just means ‘not rational’? (As opposed to ‘irrational’?)
You were talking about mistake.
It can be irrational.
Then it would be “rational” and “non-rational”.
Do you have an example?
So, how does the updated description of “rational decision” sound after taking that into account?
Do you happen to have an argument here?
So, it looks like while you say you can, you really can’t, as you have dropped all mention of who makes the decision.
And thus the next question is going to look strange: do you believe humans really exist? Or do you believe that what we call “humans” are just aggregates or parts of something that really exists?
For conclusion that decisions are not made freely follows trivially from such “ahumanism”, and it sure looks that that assumption is often found together with this conclusion…
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.
So here we must either deny that that they were both acting rationally, right? So then one of them, in your terms, is making free choice. But is it not free choice to choose rationalism?
Separate argument: without morality or other initial assumptions, on what do you base rationality? We have a bookcase. I know everything there is to know about both the bookcase and books I want to put in it, down to the molecular structure(s). Okay, I’m gonna sort and organize the books rationally, based off these facts! How do I organize it? By color of binding? Genre? Author? Alphabetically? Maybe by material; which of these books has paper made from oak trees??
Even with all the necessary information, the facts don’t tell us what to do. And rationality is based on adherence to facts. I need a structure to follow. Ignoring whether I need to freely choose to follow the structure, or whether to follow is rational, or whether the structure is rational, I follow it. But what happens when that structure is taken away? I have no rules again! So even with all the facts at my fingertips, I must use free choice to organize these books.
All life is not so simple as to compress every action into a category of freely made without rationality, or purely determined by some force in our head we call logic. In any case, this is just the same argument as free will versus determinism, which has been going on for ages, and I don’t think a forum thread on the internet will decide it conclusively. Happy seeking.
It is free when you disregard rationality. Your free choice could however be aligned by rationality.
Just jump of window and kill yourself.
You consider things into account and pick up the best option.
You can observe this through introspection.
I didn’t say so. I am wondering how you could deduce that from what I said.
Of course we are real.