Freedom and Choice

The part of speech most commonly associated with Kantian Morality is the Imperative, but perhaps another plays a more fundamental role--the Interrogative. As Kant himself explains it, his Moral theory is a response to the question 'What ought I to do?'. His response, 'Do what the Categorical Imperative commands' suggests not merely an answer to the question, but a permanent stifling of it. Nevertheless, he falls short of a systematic elimination of a 'Will' that is free to choose against that 'unconditional' Imperative, which suggests the essentiality of questionability to Phronetics. The ground of that questionability is not intrinsic 'Freedom' per se, as Sartre, notably, argues. Rather, Freedom derives from the possibility of alternatives, with respect to which there is Freedom of Choice. Sartre may insist that we are 'condemned to be free', but his is a 'Freedom from', not a 'Freedom to', which presupposes alternatives. More generally, where Freedom of Choice is not dismissed as illusory, e. g. Spinoza, the traditional explanation of the existence of Choice derives from the presence of the alternatives of 'Good' and 'Evil' that always confront everybody. However, that pair's implicit predetermination of preference is tantamount to a suppression of Choice. In contrast, in the Formaterial System, Diversification is indefinitely multiple, and Action entails Diversification. Hence, the possibility of alternatives is intrinsic to Action, and to the source of the question 'What should I do?'.