Can a decision be something other than voluntary or involuntary?

Question

I am attempting to construct an argument against free will.

An early objection has been raised, to the very first premise:

1. Decisions may be either voluntary or involuntary.

In Human Nature: the Categorical Framework, Hacker(2011) states,

"In truth however, willing (wanting, the voluntariness involved in our actions), is neither a mental act one performs nor something that happens to one; it is neither voluntary nor involuntary, neither action nor passion."

Hacker goes on to describe various accounts of 'willing', including his own. He does not however (at least, to my reading) provide any example of an instance of willing which lies in a realm other than voluntary or involuntary, and I find it impossible to conceive of such an example.

I acknowledge that a decision might be deemed to be different somehow to an act of will, but the two concepts seem close enough to merit close attention and that Hacker's point - if true - could well knock my argument dead.

So:

Can a decision be something other than voluntary or involuntary? And, if so, what might be an example of such a decision?

Answer 1

Consider the Hungry Judge Effect, or the research on how smells even that we aren't aware of impact out behaviours, like The Smell of Virtue: Clean Scents Promote Reciprocity and Charity.

There are issues around decision making of cognitive biases, unconscious biases, and our tendency towards post hoc rationalisation - to make impulsive unreasoned decisions then justify them with reason. But these phenomena aren't the end of the story, for instance many scientific methods exactly aim to correct for these, like say double-blind controlled trials. We have to balance short and long term priorities in order to make good decisions, and we have to understand ourselves well - practicing towards that has always been called, cultivating wisdom. So we can understand that there are tools to make less conditioned decisions, that relate more fully to our goals and who we are.

Another way to look at a spectrum between voluntary and involuntary decisions, is will-power, and strength of will. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche focus on this area. I would interpret it as the extent to which a person can construct and live in relation to their own meaning-cosmology, including inviting others into it, as opposed to simply taking up the values and goals for life already in their culture. I'd describe a meaning-cosmology as not about the contents of the cosmos, but about how we situate ourselves towards it, to understand meaning.

Answer 2

A decision is a plan for a future action. A decision is not an act, neither a physical act nor a mental act. Nothing happens or changes in a decision. It is a static piece of information.

All decisions are neither voluntary nor involuntary. Only actions can be either voluntary or involuntary.

If you decide to perform an action, it is a voluntary action.

If you don't decide, but you are forced to perform the action anyway, then it is an involuntary action.

Answer 3

I suppose that anything voluntary is carried out by choice of a self-aware mind, while something involuntary is carried out either without the opportunity for choice or by a non-self-aware entity. That makes a dubious assumption that there’s a clear division between the two.

Answer 4

When the word "decide" is used, it implicitly includes will. One would not say, "I decided to go to the mall today" if this decision is involuntary, one would instead say, "I was forced to go to the mall today." In this sense, deciding on something itself is a voluntary action.

Though the word "decision" in your context seems to be synonymous with "act," redacting your question to be: "Can an act be something other than voluntary or involuntary."

First of all, I would narrow down the meaning of voluntary to be the state in which one is acting according to his will, and involuntary to be not. An example I can think of is immoral research. A researcher working on deadly weapons would probably not want to continue to do so since it will hurt many people, but at the same time, his salary compels him to continue development. In this scenario, there are elements of his actions that he wills, and he wills not.

An action can be in different degrees voluntary and involuntary. To claim which is the dominant is a subjective process, for an objective judgement is perhaps beyond our ability.

The other aspect to this would be causation. Our actions are considered to be caused by ourselves, or not ourselves, and there is no way to distinguish further except: what do we consider to be ourselves.

Answer 5

Simple logic tells that no, there cannot be any decision other than voluntary and involuntary.

Aristo solved this problem of excluded middle by telling us there is no middle when you are comparing X with Not X. The two together covers the entire solution-space.

Either a thing exist Or it don't. There is nothing outside it in the solution-space; not between them, not anywhere else. A thing don't half exist.

Your decision, any decision, cannot be a mixture of voluntary and involuntary, as long as you are speaking of same thing. Your different decisions can be voluntary and involuntary, as in some are voluntary some are not. Take any decision and study it, it has to be at one side of fence or the other, it cannot be on the fence, it also cannot be anywhere outside the fence system because if it is then its not a decision.

You may be forced to start an action - say conscripted and sent to war you dont want to take part in. Later you may have a change of heart and do start fighting at your own accord. There are two separate decisions here, about the same action. Your first decision was forced, your other decision is not forced; voluntary, involuntary.