Advertisement

Philosophia

pp 1–17 | Cite as

Passionate Akrasia

  • Michael T. Michael
Article
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

The standard philosophical account of akratic action is that it is action contrary to one’s current better judgment about what to do. While respecting the philosophical debate associated with this conception of akrasia, I attempt to offer a different perspective on the subject by suggesting that akratic action could be conceived more broadly as “action without due self-restraint.” Under such a broader conception, there may be several varieties of akrasia. Following Frank Jackson, I propose that a paradigmatic variety of akrasia is “passionate akrasia,” defined in terms of the undue influence of passion. I provide an account of passionate akrasia that builds on Jackson’s decision-theoretic account, though revises it in important respects. In developing this account, I also suggest a solution to the problem of how one can act contrary to one’s current better judgment, thereby indicating how this approach can shed new light on traditional debates.

Keywords

Akrasia Weakness of will Passion Construal Decision theory 

References

  1. Cordner, C. (1985). Jackson on weakness of will. Mind, 94, 273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Davidson, D. (1969). How is weakness of the will possible? In J. Feinberg (Ed.), Moral concepts (pp. 93–113). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  3. Davidson, D. (2001). Essays on actions and events. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Elster, J. (1999). Davidson on weakness of will and self-deception. In L. Hahn (Ed.), The philosophy of Donald Davidson (pp. 425–442). Chicago: Open Court Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Holton, R. (1999). Intention and weakness of will. Journal of Philosophy, 96, 241–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jackson, F. (1984). Weakness of will. Mind, 93, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kennett, J. (2001). Agency and responsibility: A common-sense moral psychology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Klosko, G. (1980). On the analysis of Protagoras 351B-360E. Phoenix, 34(4), 307–322.Google Scholar
  9. Mele, A. (1987). Irrationality: An essay on Akrasia, self-deception, and self-control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Mele, A. (2012). Backsliding: Understanding weakness of will. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Moss, J. (2009). Akrasia and perceptual illusion. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 91(2), 119–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pedersen, N. J. (2009). Entitlement, value and rationality. Synthese, 171, 443–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pedersen, N. J. (2016). Non-rational action in the face of disagreement: An argument against (strong) non-conformism. Synthese.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1086-0.
  14. Roberts, R. C. (1988). What an emotion is: A sketch. Philosophical Review, 97, 183–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Roberts, R. C. (2003). Emotions: An essay in aid of moral psychology. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rorty, A. O. (2017). The lures of Akrasia. Philosophy, 92(2), 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stroud, S. (2014) Weakness of will. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition).https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/weakness-will/.
  18. Tappolet, C. (2003). Emotions and the intelligibility of akratic action. In S. Stroud & C. Tappolet (Eds.), Weakness of will and practical irrationality (pp. 97–120). Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Underwood International CollegeYonsei UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations