BILLIONAIRES and CHOICE

Life expectancy, claims a report from late 2018, is moving in the wrong direction, at least in the US. This is occurring at a time

when Silicon Valley has people who believe unending life is a reachable goal.  Sergei Brin, of Google fame, for example, envisions a time when we shall be able to “cure death.”

Since folks like this are flush with cash, they can bankroll projects meant to lengthen life and overcome death.  Here we get into a key valuational issue: choice. Another web billionaire. Bill Gates, spends money toward a different aim: toilet research. People living in areas without central sewage can benefit from toilets that self-containedly  dispose of human waste.  

Philosophers often discuss how freedom and responsibility are linked. We make choices and should accept accountability. Allocation of resources stands as a blatant area for choice-making. Some

choose longevity research; others, off-grid toilets.  Is there a difference? Can philosophy help at least clarify the terms of intelligent discussion?

The answer, for “choice,” is yes.  Because the word is honorific and partnered with freedom, it often evades evaluative reflection.  As a result, two quite different meanings are not properly separated: (1) choice as “electing among options for good reasons;” (2) choice as “determining a course of action based on preference.”

The difference may not stand out at first sight, but it is significant.  Sense “1” strives to balance objective and subjective considerations. Sense “2” leans toward subjectivity.  “1” emphasizes

how choice is always a selection among options. It encourages intelligent examination of the options as part of the choosing procedure.  “2” emphasizes personal preference. It minimizes exploration and evaluation of competing options.

Getting the balance right, “moderation” as the ancient Greeks put it, presents an elusive target.  The temptation to laziness compounds the problem, encouraging a sharp either-or. The ancient world tended toward the objective side.   Within 20th century philosophy, the movement called “emotivism” tilted most famously toward the subjective. “Emotivism” sharply separated science and morality. For the former, choice was based on fact-centered evidence. The latter was relegated to the realm where choice arose from non-rational factors, mostly subjective feeling. “Choice” here lost its sense of  “electing among options for good reasons.” It transformed into “act of will based on personal predilection.”

Here is where food-related discussions can help.  Describing responsibility, people often claim something like  “it’s up to the individual.” This claim is both accurate and misleading.  It is up to the individual (subjective) to make choices about diet. At the same time, it is definitely not up to the individual whether those selections will maximize nutrition or not .There are standards, physiological standards, to which we need align ourselves(objective).  

It’s true that evidence is hardly ever perfect. (i.e. eggs are good for us, no, wait

a minute, eggs are unhealthy).  Evidence exists on the continuum of stronger and weaker. The subjective component, “(I choose, for good reasons, to accept this evidence as sufficient”) hardly ever disappears completely. The combination of objective evidence and subjective commitment is almost always in play.

The dream of perfect certitude leads to a common  temptation: “no evidence is perfect, therefore personal preference is the way to go.” This is the path of skepticism.  It is based on disappointment at not being pure minds. It is problematic because it begins by projecting a false ideal, and then framing the issue as a false dilemma: either perfect certitude or general skepticism.  Rephrased in terms of “choice”: if the evidence for selection (choice) is not perfectly compelling, then “choice” becomes mere preference. The mixed, more human, path, the one aiming at a proper blend of evidence and personal commitment is set aside.

The mixed approach is not all that tempting because it is arduous.  The tug of laziness can draw us in the direction of “perfect objectivity or pure subjectivity.”  In neither case is the difficult exercise of intelligence called for. Temptations to laziness, though attractive, mislead us about who we are.  The more challenging path has the advantage of accepting our condition as it is. It is the one which restores “choice” to its status of selection for good reasons based on evidence.