Ernst Mach, the 19th century Austrian physicist and philosopher, had observed that thought experiments are a structured display of our natural curiosity about the world. “Our own ideas are more easily and readily at our disposal than physical facts. We experiment with thought, so as to say, at little expense. It shouldn’t surprise us that, often time, the thought experiment precedes the physical experiment and prepares the way for it…” Mach stated.
Thought experiments are conducted in many disciplines, most notably theoretical physics and philosophy, where physical experiments are not always possible. One of the more important tools found in the intellectual toolbox, they provide a platform for the exploration of abstract concepts and complex hypothetical scenarios. These experiments are often composed in extremes in order to challenge conventional beliefs and spur new interpretations on how things might play out in the imagination of the sharper minds.
These mental gymnastic riddles are frequently framed as a story or a situation with quite disturbing implications which we would rather not confront or contemplate possible outcomes. These unusual scenarios highlight gaps in our knowledge base and encourage logical thinking to lay the groundwork to change paradigms. In mastering these experiments one hopes to identify overlooked or possible future problems, and thus, preventing their occurrence.
John Rawls, one the most important 20th century philosophers, in his major work, ‘The Theory of Justice’ (1971), delved into the problem of distributive justice by the application of a variant of the “social contract,” resulting in the famous theory of “justice as fairness.” “The Veil of Ignorance” thought experiment is examined in the book. Rawls postulates, “Suppose that you and a group of people had to decide on the principles that would establish a new society. However, none of you know anything about who you will be in that society. Elements such as your race, income level, sex, gender, religion, and personal preferences are unknown to you. After you decide on those principles, you will be turned out into the society you established. How would that society turn out? What does that mean for our society now?”
Rawls presents the argument that being unaware of our own self-interest we cannot pursue it. He states that without that pointer we would strive for the creation of a fair society with equal rights and economic security for the poor both out of moral considerations and as a means to ensure the best possible worst-case situation for ourselves once we remove the veil. Others, who disagree with Rawls, have argued that we would seek to maximise our freedom or assure perfect equality for everyone. Which leads to the question about the current state of our society. Do we allow our self interests to get in the way of progress to a just society?
Here’s a thought experiment, somewhat of a variation of Rawl’s “Veil of Ignorance”, worthy of our consideration. Videos, which have been posted online under the caption “___________ is not a real place,” display all manner of dysfunctional social behaviour by the inhabitants of a particular society, which for purposes of simplicity, can be split into three groups. The two major groups, constituting eighty percent of the population, are equally matched in numbers, but are sharply divided along political lines. The third group, the other twenty percent, vacillates their support between the two sides every two general elections, thus acting as the Kingmakers, based upon campaign promises which are never fulfilled. Regardless of which group is in power, the prevailing government is often accused of attempting to weaponise the judiciary against its opponents, both real and perceived. The society is blessed with the resources to be one of the richest in the entire world, but rampant corruption has led to external forces controlling its wealth.
Question: Should the third group attempt to form their own political party and attract support from both sides of the divide? If this is not feasible, what are the likely projections for the fate of this society?
The painted scenario bears an uncanny resemblance to the thought experiment labelled “Buridan’s Ass” which ridicules the 14th century French philosopher Jean Buridan’s views on determinism. A donkey is placed precisely between two identical bales of grass. The donkey has no free will, and always acts in the most rational manner. However, since the donkey is equidistant from both bales, and they offer the same nourishment, neither option is better than the other. How can the donkey choose? Does it make a decision at all, or does it stand still and starve?
“If choices are made based on which action is the more rational one or on other environmental factors, the ass will starve to death trying to decide on which to eat – as both options are equally rational and indistinguishable from one another. If the ass does make a choice, then the facts of the matter couldn’t be all that determined the outcome, so some element of random chance or free will may have been involved,” stated Scotty Hendricks in Big Think, February, 2023
“It poses a problem for deterministic theories as it does seem absurd to suppose that the ass would stand still forever. Determinists remain split on the problem that the ass poses. [17th Century Dutch philosopher Baruch] Spinoza famously dismissed it, while others accept that the donkey would starve to death. Others argue that there is always some element of a choice that differentiates it from another one,” Hendricks concluded.
There is always a choice to make. Is it always based on logic?
