Philosophical Studies

, Volume 104, Issue 3, pp 227–251

Akrasia, Picoeconomics, and a Rational Reconstruction of Judgment Formation in Dynamic Choice

  • Yujian Zheng


This paper contrasts a picoeconomic approach to theexplanation of akrasia with Davidson's divided-mind approach and defends theformer in a wider context. The distinctive merits of a picoeconomic model of mindlie in the following aspects: First, it relies on a scientifically well-groundeddiscovery about motivational dynamics of animals for its explanation of preference change,which elucidates or materializes some philosophers' speculations both about thepossible mismatch between valuation and motivation and about the relevance of temporalfactors to akrasia. Second, it grounds the necessity of endogenous higher-order constraints,expressible in forms of judgment, in an intrapersonal dynamic process of interactivefirst-order temporary preferences. Thus the motivational basis for the normativeconstruction of the rationality of `best judgment' can also be illuminated with this model.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ainslie, G. (1975): ‘Specious Reward: A Behavioral Theory of Impulsiveness and Impulse Control’, Psychological Bulletin82, 463–496.Google Scholar
  2. Ainslie, G. (1982): ‘A Behavioral Economic Approach to the Defence Mechanisms: Freud's Energy Theory Revisited’, Social Science Information21, 735–779.Google Scholar
  3. Ainslie, G. (1992): Picoeconomics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Audi, R. (1979): ‘Weakness of Will and Practical Judgment’, Noûs 13, 173–189.Google Scholar
  5. Audi, R. (1990): ‘Weakness of Will and Rational Action’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 68, 270–273.Google Scholar
  6. Davidson, D. (1980): Essays on Actions and Events, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Davidson, D. (1982): ‘Paradoxes of Irrationality’, in R. Wollheim and J. Hopkins (eds.), Philosophical Essays on Freud, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 289–305.Google Scholar
  8. Heil, J. (1989): ‘Minds Divided’, Mind 98, 567–584.Google Scholar
  9. Jackson, F. (1984): ‘Weakness of Will’, Mind 93, 1–18.Google Scholar
  10. Margolis, J. (1981): ‘Rationality and Weakness of Will’, Journal of Chinese Philosophy 8, 9–27.Google Scholar
  11. McDowell, J. (1996): Mind and World, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Mele, A. (1987): Irrationality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Mele, A. (1995): Autonomous Agents: From Self-control to Autonomy, NewYork: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Mele, A. (1996): ‘Socratic Akratic Action’, Philosophical Papers XXV, 149–159.Google Scholar
  15. Pears, D. (1982): ‘How Easy is Akrasia?’, Philosophia 11, 33–50.Google Scholar
  16. Pears, D. (1984): Motivated Irrationality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Pettit, P. and Smith, M. (1993). ‘Practical Unreason’, Mind 102, 53–79.Google Scholar
  18. Plato (1953): ‘Protagoras’, in B. Jowett (trans.), The Dialogues of Plato, 4th edn., Vol. 3:358d, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  19. Walker, A.F. (1989): ‘The Problem of Weakness ofWill’, Noûs 23, 653–676. Department of Philosophy Lingnan University Tuen Mun, Hong Kong E-mail: Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yujian Zheng
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyLingnan UniversityTuen MunHong Kong

Personalised recommendations