Rationality

Is it always better to have more choices?

Comments

Your question seems ambiguous

Your question seems ambiguous between two interpretations:
(1) Is it always better to be able to make more choices?
(2) Is it always better to have more options to choose among?

Under either interpretation, I believe the answer is 'no' -- though the reason is similar in each case.

Start with (1): Compare Ann and Bill. In 2015, Ann was able to make 10,000 choices and Bill was able to make 50,000 choices. Is there reason to think that it's better that Bill be able to make more choices overall than Ann? It's hard to see why. For one, perhaps many of Bill's choices concerned trivial matters -- and it can often be bothersome to have make choices about trivial matters. If (like me) you're sympathetic to Kant's view that autonomy (the ability to govern one's own choices or actions, to rationally determine one's ends and how one pursues those ends) is the defining feature of human beings, it doesn't seem necessarily true that Bill is more autonomous by virtue of making, or being able to make, more choices. Suppose that Ann had adopted a strict dietary regimen, and buys only the food that conforms to that regimen. She thereby reduces the number of choices she makes -- but she seems no less autonomous than someone who makes many more food choices than she does.

Note that we might think a 'yes' answer to (1) is plausible because often it will be better to have some choices rather than none. But it doesn't follow from

Having some X's is better than having no X's

that

If m>n, then having m X's is better than having n X's

(That should seem obvious: having some beer might be better than having no beer, but it does't following that having six beers is better than having five; having a friend might be better than having no friends, but it doesn't follow that having 37 friends is better than having 34; etc.)

Likewise for interpretation (2): One objection to living in a one-party state is that having only one political party or ideology to choose from inhibits our ability to exercise our autonomy in the political realm. So a two-party system will be better from the standpoint of autonomy. But it doesn't follow that a state with 13 political parties to choose among is better than a state with two to choose aming (even if, again, having two to choose among is better than having one to choose among -- or zero!)

That's just to say that the value of choice isn't aggregative — what seems to make choice valuable is having meaningful alternatives to choose among when making meaningful choices, not that we have as many opportunities to choose from as many alternatives as possible.

(Incidentally, you may find the work of the psychologist Barry Schwartz helpful in this connection: http://www.amazon.com/Paradox-Choice-Why-More-Less/dp/0060005696/ref=sr_...)

Read another response by Michael Cholbi

Read another response about Rationality