Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    A monist hedonist agent can know that one option is more ... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The charm-based explanation of akrasia does not require value pluralism and is available to monists as well.

    A monist hedonist agent can know that one option is more pleasurable (cognitive element) yet be attracted to a less pleasurable option that is more unusual or interesting (affective element).

    Moral ResponsibilityVirtue Ethics
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityVirtue Ethics

    Key Terms

    Affective element(as used in philosophy of mind)
    The emotional or feeling part of how you make decisions—what you're drawn to or what moves you emotionally, separate from what you logically think.
    Cognitive element(as used in philosophy of mind)
    The thinking or reasoning part of how you make decisions—what your brain consciously understands or knows to be true.
    Hedonist

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Moral Responsibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    (as used in ethics)
    A person who believes that pleasure and happiness are the most important goals in life, and that pursuing them is the right way to live.
    monist(Wolff's taxonomy)
    A dogmatist who posits as fundamental one single kind of entities

    Related

    Being charmed by an option is not the same as valuing that option.The charm-based explanation of akrasia does not require value pluralism and is a...Therefore, a monist account can invoke the same cognitive/affective distinction ...Wiggins's explanation of akrasia relies on a distinction between the cognitive a...

    Similar

    There is a distinction between the cognitive element of a choice (know...77%A hedonist can insist that only pleasantness determines value77%A hedonist can allow properties such as nobility to determine pleasant...77%Therefore, psychological hedonism cannot motivate agents to act on the...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: value-pluralism
    View source passageHide passage
    Both Martha Nussbaum (1986) and David Wiggins (1980) have argued for pluralism on the grounds that only pluralism can explain akrasia, or weakness of will. An agent is said to suffer from weakness of will when she knowingly chooses a less good option over a better one. On the face of it, this is a puzzling thing to do—why would someone knowingly do what they know to be worse? A pluralist has a plausible answer—when the choice is between two different sorts of value, the agent is preferring A to

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective