Is deliberation rational?

Author

Affiliation

David W. Agler

The Pennsylvania State University

Abstract

Slides for Metaphysics.

Introduction

• As a species, we are ever deliberating, planning, scheming, weighing the pros and cons of our actions.
• This activity implies a belief in free will.

Therefore, this is inconsistent:

• Person says there is no free will.
• Person deliberates \(\to\) free will exists.

Plan

• General plan is to explore deliberation and the rejection of free will.

More specific plan is to try to answer these questions:

1. If you deliberate, then do you believe in free will?
2. Do actions always speak louder than words?
3. Is it ever OK to have inconsistent beliefs?

Clarification

• Deliberation does not entail that we are free
• Our deliberation might be pointless
• But it does seem to entail that we believe in free will

Deliberation defined

When we deliberate

flowchart LR
  subgraph Deliberation
    E[You]
    A[A]
    B[B]
  end
  subgraph Implication
    BeA[Belief A is possible]
    BeB[Belief B is possible]
end
E -->|considering| A & B
A --> BeA
B --> BeB

1. we consider which of two actions \(A\) or \(B\) to perform.
2. we consider the pros and cons of each
3. the process assumes we believe that both \(A\) and \(B\) are possible courses of action.

Deliberation visualized

flowchart LR
  subgraph Deliberation
    E[You]
    A[Fight the teacher]
    B[Chill]
  end
  subgraph Implication
    BeA[Possible to fight the teacher]
    BeB[Possible for me to chill]
end
E -->|considering| A & B
A --> BeA
B --> BeB

Inconsistency

1. Belief: Tek believes that there is no free will
2. Action: Tek deliberates
3. Belief: Deliberation implies a belief in free will.
4. Tek’s actions are inconsistent with his beliefs

Inconsistency Visualized

flowchart LR
  subgraph Deliberation
    E[Tek]
    A[X]
    B[not-X]
  end
  subgraph Implication
    BeA[Possible to do X]
    BeB[Possible to do not-X]
    F[I believe I'm Free!]
end
  subgraph Words
    W["I am not free"]
    I["I believe I'm not free"]
  end

W-->I
E -->|considering| A & B
A --> BeA
B --> BeB
BeA & BeB --> F
I -.-|contradiction| F

Inconsistency and irrationality

NoteInconsistency entails irrationality

Inconsistency entails irrationality.

• P1. P and not-P cannot both be true.
• P2. If you knowingly believe in P and not-P, then you are knowingly believing something that cannot be true.
• P3. It is irrational to knowingly believe in false things.
• C. Therefore, it is irrational to knowingly believe in inconsistencies.

Diagnosis and cure

1. Diagnosis: Tek’s beliefs are inconsistent.
2. Prescription: If you have an inconsistent set of beliefs, drop one of your beliefs.
   1. Stop deliberating and deny free will (circle of control, present anchoring, )
   2. Keep deliberating and accept free will exists

Diagnosis and cure visualized

flowchart LR
  subgraph Diagnosis
    A[Actions]
    F[I believe I'm free!]
    W[Words]
    N[I believe I'm not free!]
    C[Contradiction]
    IR["Irrationality (BAD)"]
end
  subgraph Prescription
    B[Become consistent]
    S["1. Stop deliberating"]
    BF["2. Accept free will"]
  end

A --> F
W --> N
F & N --> C
C --> IR
Diagnosis --> Prescription
B -.-> S & BF

Criticism

We can criticize this line of thinking in two ways:

1. Diagnosis is wrong
   1. Tek’s beliefs are not inconsistent.
   2. Inconsistent beliefs are not always irrational
2. Prescription is mistaken:
   1. Inconsistency does not entail you should give up a belief

Are Tek’s beliefs inconsistent?

Criticism 1: Diagnosis 1

Perhaps Tek’s beliefs are not inconsistent** because we are extracting Tek’s beliefs incorrectly.

• We often say “actions speak louder than words”
• Perhaps Tek does not believe what he is saying (Tek believes in free will!)

Proper prescription: Just say what you really believe.

Criticism 1: Actions and words

Modified example from van Inwagen (1983):

1. Man swears he believes his wife is faithful.
2. He is always checking her phone
3. Follows her when she leaves
4. Always questions her about her whereabouts

His beliefs are not inconsistent: he doesn’t believe what he says.

Exercise

NoteActions speak louder than words

Create an example where someone says they believe \(A\) but their actions indicate they believe not-\(A\).

Criticism applied to freedom

1. Deliberation implies belief in free will
2. Words sometimes conflict with this.
3. Actions speak louder than words.
4. No inconsistency: true belief is “I believe in free will”

Response

This criticism would not work if “actions do not speak louder than words”:

1. Actions and words equally indicate their real beliefs (neither holds greater value)
2. Words are a better indication of real beliefs.

If the above:

• In case (1), there would be inconsistency
• In case (2), deliberation would not indicate a belief in free will.

Response visualized

flowchart TD
  subgraph Actions
    M[Actions speak louder than words]
    D[Deliberation implies free will]
  end
  subgraph Neither
    E[Actions = Words]
    I[Inconsistency]
  end
  subgraph Words
    W[Words speak louder than actions]
    nD[Deliberation does not imply free will]
  end  
   Actions -->|reject| Neither & Words
   M --> D
   E --> I
   W --> nD

Words and actions (equal)

Take the man who says he believes his wife is faithful.

• He swears this is the case.
• He says you can punish him if he doesn’t.
• He knows you know about his actions.

It seems like (1) he believes what he says but also (2) he does not believe what he says.

Words and actions (equal)

If words and actions are equally weighted, then:

1. there is the inconsistency
2. prescription: remove the inconsistency by changing one of your beliefs

Case 2: Words trump actions

Suppose you have a study partner.

• They say they are going to fail their exam.
• “there is no point, I’m going to fail.”
• “I’ll just study anyway but it is useless.”

Still take the exam.

Case 2: Free will

If a person who denies free will is like your study partner, then:

1. They do not believe in free will
2. But they are just going through the motions anyway (pointless activity that has no impact).

They believe only one outcome is possible, but just deliberate anyway.

Exercise: Words trump actions

NoteActions speak louder than words

Try to create a scenario where a person’s words (what they say they believe) is a better indicator of what they believe than their actions.

Is having inconsistent beliefs irrational?

The prescription

If Tek’s beliefs are inconsistent, then the claim is:

1. Sickness: Inconsistency entails irrationality (part of the diagnosis)
2. Prescription: He should give up one of his beliefs

We’ll consider why this line of thinking is flawed.

NoteCure and disease

Think of a medical scenario (or life advice) where

1. You are diagnosed with a problem that is not really a problem (hard to think of)
2. You are given a “cure” but perhaps the “cure” is worse than the disease.

Inconsistency and false beliefs

Recall why having a set of inconsistent beliefs is bad:

1. P and not-P entail we have a false set of beliefs
2. Bad to believe in false things

I believe I can fly!

Keeping it inconsistent 1

Suppose an astronomer who

1. cannot give up their belief that the sun is a divine being, and
2. intellectually believes that the sun is an astronomical body.

So …

• If consistency is important, the astronomer should give up belief (2).
• \(\{1, 2\}\) are false, but so is \(\{1\}\)

Keeping it inconsistent 1

• The cure does nothing: still left with false belief
• Costly prescription: belief change is costly (psychologically)

Continuation:

• Possible response: P and not-P is necessarily false, but a false P is just contingently false.
• Response: Why would the modality of the falseness make it better or worse?

Keeping it inconsistent 2

Consider what benefits the astronomer gets from having both beliefs:

1. belief that the sun is a divine being (zero benefit)
2. sun is an astronomical body (some benefit)

Giving up (2) would actually make the astronomer worse off.

• Prescription: Be consistent, drop belief (2)
• Practical rationality: Be inconsistent, keep belief (2)

Keeping it inconsistent

flowchart TD
  subgraph Doctor
    I[Inconsistent beliefs]
    IR[Irrational]
    G[Give up a belief]
  end
  subgraph Zero
    F[Still left with false belief]
    N[Not better off]
  end
  subgraph Worse
    L[Loss of true belief benefits]
    W[Worse off]
  end  
   Doctor -->|response| Zero & Worse
   I --> IR --> G
   F --> N
   L --> W

Exercise

NoteExercise

Create a scenario where

1. a person has two inconsistent beliefs \(A\) and \(B\)
2. they cannot give up on belief \(A\) (which is false)
3. giving up on belief \(B\) so that their beliefs would be consistent would either (a) offer no practical benefit and / or (b) be practically disadvantageous.