In her TED Talk, “How to make hard choices”, Ruth Chang argued that we make hard choices not by objectively weighing all the reasons given to us by the societal expectations of what is “rational”, but by making reasons for ourselves.

She argues that had everyone been “rational”, everyone would wear black socks instead of pink socks and live in the city instead of the countryside. She argues that hard choices have the ability to shape us into the person we want to be, rather than being a consequence of our preexisting nature.

While easy choices have options that are objectively comparable to one another, hard choices have options that are neither better than one another, or can be said to be equal. These options are “on a par” meaning they have different kinds of value that cannot be put on a single scale.

I disagree with her arguments, however. While Chang suggests that we have the ability to author our own lives through our choices, I argue that our choices are merely a reflection of who we already are and that we are victims of consequence unable to author our own lives. Indeed, by comparing the writings of Kane, Kant, Hume and Frankfurt, I will argue that contrary to Chang’s view, we cannot change ourselves through hard choices.

Lack of evidence for libertarianism, contrasted with scientific observations supporting determinism on the macro scale, in addition to compatibilism failing to answer where a person’s desires come from, makes defending the view that we can change ourselves through hard choices extremely difficult.

In this article, I will defend Chang’s view with libertarianism, before providing counter arguments using determinism, and finally weighing compatibilism with the limits of choice.

The libertarian view and its flaws

The philosopher Robert Kane says that self-forming actions — actions that are made at moments where the reasons are not clear — are free choices as they do not originate from prior causes.

In choosing a career, Chang had to decide on whether she wanted to become a lawyer or philosopher. She asserts that when we choose actions, we are discovering our values in the process. She chose to become a lawyer, only to realize that her heart was not for it. It could be argued that the reason why she did not find it suitable in the end was because she did not commit strongly enough.

People who say we can choose our basic personal values argue that we can commit to one option over the other when options are on a par, therefore these commitments define who we are in the process, and that small choices when combined make up a system of values.

To be able to choose what kind of person to be via choices, libertarianism has to be true. What libertarians argue for is that we are capable of agent causation, which means a causation that originates in the agent instead of anything determined by forces the agent cannot control.

Kant argues that our physical bodies are part of our phenomenal selves which are subject to cause and effect in line with nature. But Kant adds that we also have the thinking part of ourselves, called noumenal selves, which is free and not subject to laws of cause and effect.

However, the argument that we have a physical part and a non-physical part is hard to prove because the non-physical part is unobservable, and we cannot argue for libertarianism based on the subjective experience that we feel free because this might be an illusion.

Moreover, there is no explanation of where free will originates from; if they are random, then they are a result of quantum indeterminacy and not free will. Another problem is that there are always reasons behind our actions, making them not random. Because the evidence for libertarianism is insubstantial, the ability to choose basic values is questionable.

Evidence for determinism

Indeed, people who say that we cannot choose our basic personal values argue that we already have a predisposed psychology that is not of our choice, and when we choose an option we are basing it objectively on whether it is suitable to our psychology.

Through fMRI observation, Koenig-Robert & Pearson discovered that unconscious neural activity shows that we already predicted the option we are going to take 10 seconds before we are even consciously aware of it.

Regarding Chang’s wrong decision of choosing to become a lawyer, she could have said that this choice was not really an ‘on a par’ case for her, because from the onset she values philosophy more. So, there is strong evidence that we cannot choose what kind of person to be, with hard choices stemming from existing predispositions.

We cannot choose basic personal values if our choices are predetermined. Determinism states that an object has to obey pre-existing physical laws, everything that happens to it in the future can be predicted from the present. Therefore, the person you are now is caused by your past actions, but your past actions are caused by your parents’ decisions, genes, upbringing, and environment, so your choices are already predetermined.

On the other hand, determinism does not account for quantum indeterminacy, which shows that we cannot predict the future from physical processes in the present as these processes are random on the quantum level.

However, the importance lies on factors on the macro scale, such as genes and upbringing, instead of the quantum scale. Therefore, the argument that we cannot be free and make our own decisions still stands.

Hume’s compatibilism

On the other hand, compatibilism states that it does not matter if the person’s desires are predetermined, they are exerting their free will as long as there are no inner or outer compulsions that prevent them from acting on their actual intentions.

Hume argues that there is a difference between being free and being constrained. It is possible to be free and still determined, as the only time we are not free is if we are being constrained.

However, it is possible that even if we have free will in Hume’s definition, the power of hard choices in changing us is limited as the amount of choice is constrained from the onset.

Hard choices can only exist in an environment in which the person has enough agency in their own life to make them. The fact that our psychology already determines what kind of person we are is not something we can control.

Additionally, not everyone has the privilege to follow their passions instead of what is practical — many people cannot make big choices as a whole, because their life purely depends on survival. Hence, the choices we can make are already limited from the onset, so their ability in making us change ourselves is also limited.

However, if our predetermined will aligns with external circumstances, then we are free to define our future selves through choices made in the present. In his paper, “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility”, Harry Frankfurt gives an example of a neuroscientist who makes their subject choose between politician A and B.

If the subject originally chose politician A, the neuroscientist is going to make her choose B. But if the subject originally chose B, the neuroscientist does not intervene. In such a case, even when both instances are determined — the first by the scientist and the second by circumstances that made the subject the person she is — it is only in the latter case that the subject is responsible for her decisions.

Frankfurt argues that determinism does not matter; we can still change ourselves by making decisions out of free will. Nonetheless, Frankfurt’s argument is only that as long as circumstances allow us to make a certain choice, therefore we are free to make it. This does not answer the question of whether making hard choices can shape us as people or if they merely reinforce pre-existing values.

Conclusion

Chang’s view is wrong as we cannot make choices freely, moreover changing ourselves through the choices we make.

Firstly, the view that we can change ourselves through hard choices is supported by Kane’s self-forming actions and libertarianism.

Then, counter arguments are provided, stating that basic personal values are determined.

Finally, while compatibilism provided a good argument on why free will exists, it does not remove the limits of choice and choosing hard decisions due to predetermined values.

This article recommends more research to be conducted on the nature of free will and how to adapt compatibilism to self-transformation via decisions.

—

Previously Published on Medium

iStock image