Discussion about this post

User's avatar
J. Goard's avatar

This seemed pretty bizarre to me at first with the example of "get free insurance", since I automatically interpret "get free x" as "have the wide choice of paying $y >= 0 for x".

The problem with The Parity of No-Choice Situations becomes much clearer to me when I consider the possibility that I have the choice to say "blip" or "blop" whenever anything consequentially relevant happens to me. That would defuse the paradox, but in a way that seems completely divorced from ethics. I end up unable to understand what "No-Choice" could even mean, other than the fatalist frame in which everything is No-Choice.

Expand full comment
Risto's avatar

Your argument presupposes that choice does not have intrinsic value rather than demonstrate it. Specifically, the "The Insignificance of Dominated Options” remains unsubstantiated. Indeed, the whole point of thinking there is intrinsic value to choice means that something other than the consequence of your option matters.

If I get the option to send my kid to two good schools in addition to having the option of sending them to a great school, that would be better than having the latter option alone because I have more free choice.

I'm not saying this proves that there is intrinsic value to choice, I'm saying you haven't proven that there isn't.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts