Indecision and ambivalence have been prevalent issues in today’s society, with around twenty percent of adults today experiencing chronic indecisiveness, which researchers say is almost an entirely learned behavior. When torn between two choices of equal opportunity, overthinking and remaining unsure in someone’s decision leads to the negative outcome they were afraid of to begin with.
Across faith and philosophy, indecision has been regarded as a burden. One of the oldest fables for uncertainty is Plato’s “Euthyphro dilemma,” which questions whether something is good because god is commanding it, or if god is commanding it only because it is good. In Buddhism, “Vicikitsā,” or skeptical doubt, is one of the five obstacles to achieving enlightenment.
A potential resolution, albeit a forceful one, is found in stoicism, choosing to focus only on what you can control. A stoic would focus on their intention, and despite an outcome, would rationally act instead of focusing on an end result. They would not try to figure out the purpose of morality to be righteous, and they value the ability to choose. Two equal options are proportional and, therefore, both perfect.
“Should two courses be judged equal, then the will cannot break the deadlock; all it can do is to suspend judgment until the circumstances change, and the right course of action is clear.”
French Philosopher Jean Buridan satirized the idea of determinism, instead arguing for a moral influence on it, through the indication that a being with no free will and only reason would be so unable to decide between two options that they would not even make an attempt in either direction. They would be able to formulate a plan of action, but no free will to act on it.
Determinism is a philosophical thought process that started with the early Greek philosophers in the 6th or 7th century BCE. It is the concept that everything, including human action and choice, is controlled by fate and not up to our own choices. The term has been used to insinuate that humanity has no free will, and that they could not be held morally responsible for their actions.
Originally, Aristotle is credited with the parable of a man being equally thirsty as he is hungry, leading to his starvation and death. His writing in “On The Heavens“ critiques the preconceived notion that because the earth was spherical, it had to be stationary, because all the forces upon it were equal. Buridan, inspired by this old parable about humankind, utilized the image of a dog being torn between two equidistant food sources instead. However, a more fitting metaphor would be found in the donkey, an animal seen as “servile” and “stubborn” in the works of Homer, Aesop and Apuleius, to name a few.
While the donkey is used to highlight the absurdity of Buridan’s theory, it also connects to Buridan’s lack of faith in man’s ability to choose. The donkey, faced between two equally perfect bales of hay, is unable to decide which to consume. Hungry, but unable to decide, the donkey stalls and, while undecided, starves to death.
It is contradictory that a rational and logical creature would be represented by the epitome of stupidity in literary culture. If decision-making is based solely on rational reasoning and understanding, how can we decide between two equally intriguing options? Do we lack the mental fortitude to decide, or are we trapped in a state of perpetual rumination?
Critiques of determinism state that Buridan’s Donkey is a logical conclusion taken to an extreme. No creature, human or otherwise, makes decisions solely on rationality without a consideration for unconscious factors. There are also no perfectly equal opportunities that are identical in nature. There is always some minute detail that can be seen to distinguish between two options. Entropy, or disorder, is the world’s natural inclination. Asymmetry exists in everything natural, which would lead to a clear choice between two options in Buridan’s hypothetical.
In “Existentialism is a Humanism,” writer Jean-Paul Sartre explains, “Man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, in other respect is free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.”
The donkey’s indecision, in a way, is a reflection of humanity’s freedom. When a decision is not being made solely on logic and reason, people are given the freedom to choose for themselves. In a situation where both options appear equally pleasant, you are pushed to rely on your own value and beliefs, which can be tough to face. In this existential view, that choice would be deemed pointless.
However, the world is not meaningless. The very notion that humans create their own happiness and meaning by examining values and morals means that they create their purpose. If the motivation to choose is prevalent, then the ability to create that meaning is not out of sight. Sartre’s negative outlook only prolongs internal suffering and detracts from the significance of death. The donkey’s starvation would have been for nothing.
In 1984, Leslie Lamport, an American computer scientist, ran Buridan’s Donkey dilemma through a mathematical model dealing with continuity, which is a function that shows predictable behavior. Through this, he discovered a paradox: that no matter what action the donkey decides to embark on, there is always a starting condition in which the donkey starves to death. The case Lamport makes for his findings is found in his railroad crossing instance, where a driver stopped at a railroad crossing is faced with the indecision of waiting or speeding full-force across the tracks. The train cannot stop or slow down, and regardless of the driver’s attentiveness, some of them will be struck by the locomotive.
Buridan’s Donkey is a lesson in introspection. Using your intuition, along with rational thinking, leads to the optimal decision. Staying stagnant in indecision rarely leads to a positive outcome. Human agency, intuition and moral reasoning are essential for making meaningful decisions, as staying undecided is a detrimental choice on its own.
