When I listened to the episode, I was intrigued by the philosophical questions of assisted suicide and decision making. In my current research I am focusing on the phenomenon of decision making. We all make more or less important decisions every day. Otherwise, we would not be able to act. This is truly a trivial observation, but it gets more sophisticated if we consider the difference between “choice” and “decision”. We often hear the phrase: “I had no choice, I had to make a decision”, or “I decided because there was no choice”.
The following is an excerpt of my research on decision making as listed above.
Contents
- Introduction
- Six Ideal Types of Decision Making
- Conclusion
1. Introduction
There is a fundamental difference between choice and decision. In everyday language this difference is evident in phrases such as: “If there are no choices we/I must decide,” or “there are no choices left, a decision must be taken” or in retrospect: “I had no choice, I had to make a decision.” Irrespective of whether the decision is made by one person or by a collective on the basis of deliberation and exchange of arguments, two aspects of decision-making processes come to the fore. First, choice and decision are two distinctive but related social phenomena. Secondly, the problem of time matters. The problem of decision making under the pressure of time raises significant ethical issues. This essay seeks to address the problem of time in relation to decision-making from a phenomenological and ethical perspective. The problem of time pressure in decision-making processes inevitably raises the question of meaning in the sense of the legitimation of decisions made.
2. Six Ideal Types of Decision Making
In my publication "Ethics of Decisionism. Carl Schmitt's theological blind spot", Journal for Cultural Research 20 (2016) I identified a typology for decision making. The research findings are a result of my studies on Carl Schmitt and recently on Helmut Schmidt as examples for Decisionism.
There are at least six categories of decisions that can be ideal-typically distinguished.
● First, a decision is made by one person about themselves. Such decisions should be called private decisions.
● Secondly, a decision is made by one person that concerns another person’s life. Such decisions should be called intersubjective decisions.
● Thirdly, a decision is made by one person that concerns the life of many persons. Such decisions should be called individual political decisions.
● Fourthly, a collective body makes a decision that impacts the collective decision-making body itself. Such a decision should be called congregational decisions.
● Fifthly, a collective body makes a decision that concerns one person’s individual life. Such decisions should be called judicial decisions.
● Sixthly, a collective body makes a decision which impacts the life of many others. Such decisions should be called collective political decisions.
3. Conclusion
The problem of time-pressure applies to all six types of decisions. Once again, it is useful to look closer at the concept of time and its etymological meaning. In classic Greek a distinction is made between the seizure of time (καιρός) and the duration of time (χρόνος). This classic distinction is reflected in the discussion of quality of life versus quantity of life, in the case of assisted suicide. The former is crucial and requires the acknowledgment of the right moment when to take action, either for oneself on behalf of a person, other people, or if a collective body recognises the very moment to make a decision for themselves, pass a judgement, or decide as a collective body on the fate of many other people. To make a choice and to take a decision are fundamentally different, but they can overlap. Although, whenever the pressure of time comes into play. The right moment of taking action occurs, a pure choice becomes an existential decision. Time makes the difference and thus defines its meaning. This is precisely problem of assisted suicide. When should one end one´s life?
4. Further Reading
„Orientierung in Extremlagen. Helmut Schmidts Marburger Rede 2007" in: Vorbild Helmut Schmidt? Politische Führung in Krisen und Katastrophen (Hamburg: Mittler, 2024) pp. 224-247.
"Ethics of Decisionism. Carl Schmitt's theological blind spot", J"Ethics of Decisionism. Carl Schmitt's theological blind spot", Journal for Cultural Research 20 (2016) 20 (2016)
These pages were created by me, Dr Michael Hoelzl, Senior Lecturer in Political Philosophy and Religion in the Department of Religions and Theology at the University of Manchester. My main research interests include legal philosophy, political theology and Nietzsche. My current research focuses on a philosophy of political decision making, based on a critical translation of Helmut Schmidt´s Marburg speech.