A few months ago, two vaccines against Covid-19 were rolled out. Initially, there was vaccine hesitancy among people due to misinformation and rumour of their possible side effects. The talk among people was if they should get vaccinated. For those who wanted to get the jab, the issue was which of the two vaccines was better— Covaxin developed by Hyderabad based Bharat Biologicals or Covishield by Oxford-AstraZeneca and manufactured by Serum institute of India. During discussions among friends and relatives, if someone said that they got a shot of Covishield, another would reply saying that they would rather wait for Covaxin. This was indeed a peculiar situation.
During the first wave of the Pandemic, people would pray for a vaccine to protect them from the virus. When the two vaccines were rolled out and said that they are equally safe and effective, many people dilly-dallied and were unable to make a choice between the two. This indecision would have exposed them to the infection and for some, this would have had fatal consequences. Any rational individual would have said: “I am indifferent between the two and let me get the jab as quickly as possible to save my life”. Such situations where people faced with choices become indecisive is explained by a paradox called Buridan's principle.
Buridan’s principle refers to a hypothetical situation wherein an ass that is both hungry and thirsty is placed midway between a stack of hay and a pail of water. The paradox states that since the ass cannot make any decision between hay and water, it dies of hunger and thirst. Jean Buridan, the French philosopher to whom the paradox is attributed, was born in the fourteenth century in Picardy, France, and taught logic and the works of Aristotle at the University of Paris before becoming its rector.
Buridan was influenced by the writings of Aristotle when he wrote about the paradox— Aristotle had discussed this concept in his book On the Heavens and had said that “a man, being just as hungry as thirsty, and placed in between food and drink, must necessarily remain where he is and starve to death.” While Buridan used a donkey, Aristotle used man as the protagonist to highlight the dilemma faced while making a choice between two goods.
Free will
Before Buridan, the 12th-century Persian scholar and philosopher Al-Ghazali too had discussed the application of this paradox to human decision making. He contended that free will could break the stalemate. Al-Ghazali stated: “Suppose there are two similar dates in front of a man, who has a strong desire for them but is unable to take them both, surely, he will take one of them, through a quality in him, the nature of which is to differentiate between two similar things.”
Coming back to the paradox, in real life it is very unlikely that the ass would starve itself to death and being rational typically would have helped itself to both the hay and the pail of water. However, the illustration highlights the consequences of kicking the can down the road on any issue be it for an individual, an organisation or a government.
In politics
The Buridan paradox has applications in politics too. It is played out during every election. The voter is the Buridan’s ass, who cannot choose between two contestants having questionable credentials. In many cases the rational voter is undecided and may choose Nota. It is also possible that due to indecision he may not vote at all.
The important message Buridan’s principle conveys to all of us is that not making a choice can lead to decision paralysis.
The paradox is relevant for businesses during the current pandemic. Businesses have been paralysed into thinking: Should we see this as an opportunity and scale up or should we see this as a threat and cutback on investments seeing a fall in consumer spending? Businesses should invest carefully and be alert and not be paralysed. Not doing anything like Buridan’s ass can result in bankruptcy.
(The writer is a chartered financial analyst and a former banker and currently teaches at Manipal Academy of Banking, Bengaluru)