Michael Hauskeller’s “Why Buridan’s Ass Doesn’t Starve” (Essay Sample)

Name: Instructor: Course: Date: Michael Hauskeller’s “Why Buridan’s Ass Doesn’t Starve” Summary The essay “Why Buridan’s Ass Doesn’t Starve” by Micahel Hauskeller argues for the free will paradox. There are several issues that arise from the essay, especially from the presentation style by the author. Buridan’s Ass is the paradox named after Jean Buridan, who postulated a hypothetical situation where a donkey finds itself precisely equidistant between two equally big and accessible hay bales. However, because the two bales are identical, it cannot find a reason for choosing one bale over the other and ends up starving to death because of its indecision. Although the author employed satire and humor in his essay, he aims to demonstrate that freewill does not exist in real instances. Through the use of satire, he manages to show that freewill is an alien concept in real life. The author argues against several aspects of this notion. This is done by stating that the paradox is flawed in that there are no situations in real life where two options can be identical to ensure that the weighted reasons for a choice are equal. Hauskeller also theorizes that even if the two bales of hay were equally attractive, donkeys do not require free will to break the tie: “Buridan’s Ass is a mere fiction…No matter how artfully we arrange the situation, a donkey will not hesitate long, if at all, and will soon choose one of the piles of hay. He doesn’t care which, and he certainly won’t starve” (Hauskeller). Consequently, although the author argues against the practicality of the thought experiment, he asserts that at least as far as donkeys in real life are concerned, there is evidence against free will. Another flaw in the free will paradox underlined by Hauskeller is the assumption that the donkey and the two bales of hay are stuck in time, and no lapse in time changes the situation. The agents in the paradox are imagined as timeless, and no events transpire over time to help lessen the dilemma. The author’s conclusions are founded on the theory of moral determinism, or the belief that people have no free will but make their decisions using cold, mechanical computation. Hauskeller begins by outlining the basic manner in which people, as rational beings, think. He cites the Principle of Sufficient Reason as the most plausible explanation for why people choose between two equally attractive options (Hauskeller). People generally believe that nothing comes out of nothing, and there has to be a sufficient reason for every choice we make. Even the simple decision to choose asparagus over spinach tart in a restaurant, when we equally like them very much, is not a random choice but is founded on a rational basis. One of the reasons why Buridan’s Ass is central to the case the author is making is because it highlights the special dignity of being human: free will. The donkey has the reason to see that the two bales of hay are equally significant and accessible but lacks the reason to choose one bale over the other. This inability is tied to Hauskeller’s argument that arbitrarily choosing one hay bale would be unintelligible. There must be a reason for the selection, especially if both bales are equally attractive. Selecting one bale of hay over the other would not be a genuine choice if the option was not founded on a rational reason. The donkey can only choose one bale of hay based on sufficient details. One bale of hay must present itself as more attractive than the other, or the donkey cannot select any. In the paradox, the donkey cannot decide between the two bales and starving. Hauskeller’s basic premise is that people choose between two similar alternatives by finding reasons for giving a preference to one option over the other. This process is mechanical, even when two options are near perfect equilibrium. Suppose one decides to choose asparagus over spinach tart. In that case, it is because they did not have sufficient reasons for eating spinach tart, or the reasons for eating asparagus were stronger. However, Buridan’s Ass presents a situation where there is a perfect equilibrium between the opposing reasons. Although the two hay bales are equally attractive in the thought experiment, choosing between the two balanced options would demonstrate free will. While a donkey in real life would lack the reason to choose one bale of hay over the other, it would not starve to death for lack of free will. The donkey would be driven to one hay bale by its hunger rather than any logical decision. It does not require free will to break the tie; rather, it will act irrationally by arbitrarily choosing one bale of hay over the other. Besides, since the hay bales are equally attractive, there is no advantage in choosing one bale over the other. Both bales are equally choice-worthy, and there is no plausible reason for selecting one instead of the other out of hunger. Therefore, the author argues that the paradox is flawed: it is impossible to find two choices in real life that are so identical in every respect that the weighted reasons for a choice are equal. Even if the two alternatives are identical in numerous aspects, they may differ in at least some aspects. Moreover, a lapse in time often results in relevant differences between the two options, making it easier to find a reason to break the impasse. Critical Evaluation I agree that, at least as far as donkeys in real life are concerned, there is evidence against free will. However, I do not believe that humans are completely incapable of choosing between two equall...