The Scenario:
Imagine a perfectly rational donkey. This donkey is placed exactly in the middle of two equally desirable and equally accessible bales of hay. Assume the donkey is equally hungry for both bales.
The Paradox:
According to the premise, the donkey is perfectly rational and has no reason whatsoever to prefer one bale of hay over the other. There is no logical basis for choosing left over right, or right over left.
The paradox is this: If the donkey can only act based on a rational preference, and there is no rational preference in this situation, what does the donkey do? It seemingly cannot make a rational choice. If it must make a choice to survive (eat), its perfect rationality leads to inaction. The paradox suggests the donkey would be paralyzed by indecision and, consequently, starve to death, despite having food readily available.
Buridan’s Original Purpose (and the point often missed):
While the story is about a donkey, Buridan didn’t primarily use it to discuss animal behavior. He used similar scenarios to argue against determinism in human free will. He questioned whether a perfectly rational human mind, faced with two equally good options, would be forced by rationality to choose arbitrarily (suggesting a form of freedom beyond pure deterministic reason) or if they would be paralyzed (suggesting that action always requires a determining preference).
Resolutions and Criticisms of the Paradox:
The paradox is generally seen today as highlighting flaws in its own initial assumptions, rather than being an unsolvable problem:
Perfect Equality is Impossible in Reality: In the real world, nothing is ever perfectly equal. One bale might be slightly larger, smell slightly better, or be a millimeter closer. The donkey’s internal state (a slight shift in attention, a random neural fluctuation) would also break the symmetry. Real-world decisions are rarely made under conditions of absolute, perfect equivalence.
Practical Rationality Allows Arbitrary Choice: A truly practical rational agent (human or even animal instinctually) faced with this scenario would recognize that the consequence of not choosing (starvation) is the worst possible outcome. In the absence of a basis to prefer one good option over another, a practical rational choice is to arbitrarily pick one to avoid the guaranteed bad outcome of inaction. Making a random choice becomes the rational action when logic offers no preference among equally viable positive outcomes and inaction is detrimental.
Animals Aren’t Purely Rational Agents: Real animals aren’t philosophical constructs. They operate on instinct, habit, and immediate environmental cues, which would quickly break any perceived deadlock.
In Summary:
The Donkey’s Paradox (Buridan’s Ass) illustrates the theoretical problem of decision-making when faced with two or more equally desirable options, suggesting that perfect rationality could lead to paralysis. However, its resolution lies in recognizing that true perfect equality is not found in reality, and that practical rationality includes mechanisms (like arbitrary choice) to avoid detrimental inaction when faced with equivalent positive options. Its historical significance is more tied to discussions of human free will and the nature of rational choice.
Do read the Disclaimer