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
    An agent can act akratically because she is 'charmed' by ... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    An agent can act akratically because she is 'charmed' by some aspect of the less good option, causing her to choose what she knows to be worse overall.

    Moral ResponsibilityVirtue Ethics
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.There is a distinction between the cognitive element of a choice (knowing which option is better) and the affective element (being attracted to or charmed by an option).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An agent can be charmed by a feature of the less good option even while cognitively recognizing it is worse.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Socrates argued in the Protagoras that genuine knowledge of the good is sufficient for right action, making 'charmed' akrasia impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If an agent truly knows option A is worse overall, the 'charm' of A constitutes evidence she lacks full evaluative knowledge, not a failure of will.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.What appears as charm-induced akrasia is better explained as incomplete practical reasoning, dissolving the cognitive-affective split the argument assumes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Davidson's account of akrasia requires that the akratic act be intentional under some description, meaning charm must be expressible as a reason the agent endorses.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If charm functions as a genuine reason the agent endorses, then choosing the charming option does not involve acting against one's all-things-considered judgment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates being causally influenced by a feature with having a reason, smuggling non-rational causation into a domain that requires rational explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityVirtue Ethics

    Related

    An agent can be charmed by a feature of the less good option even while cognitiv...Davidson's account of akrasia requires that the akratic act be intentional under...If an agent truly knows option A is worse overall, the 'charm' of A constitutes ...If charm functions as a genuine reason the agent endorses, then choosing the cha...
    +4 moreShow less
    Socrates argued in the Protagoras that genuine knowledge of the good is sufficie...The claim conflates being causally influenced by a feature with having a reason,...There is a distinction between the cognitive element of a choice (knowing which ...What appears as charm-induced akrasia is better explained as incomplete practica...

    Similar

    An agent can be charmed by a feature of the less good option even whil...86%An agent may act as she does because she wants to and sees reasons in ...83%An agent makes the choices she does because of certain facts about the...82%An agent may act on the basis of a belief merely by treating what she ...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    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
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit