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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that If the akratic agent acts on a real reason (however subordinate), the action is not strictly irrational but rather weakly rational in a partition of motivational states.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If an agent's better judgment identifies a weightier reason, acting on a subordinate reason while ignoring it constitutes a failure of rational integration.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Calling akratic action 'weakly rational' conflates having-a-reason with acting-rationally; irrationality consists precisely in this disconnect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The partition model risks trivializing irrationality: any action becomes rational if we carve motivational states narrowly enough to include it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Akratic agents possess multiple, conflicting desire-sets; acting on any genuine desire shows rationality within that motivational partition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Strict irrationality requires acting on no reason at all; subordinate reasons are still reasons, so akratic action meets minimal rationality criteria.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Distinguishing weak from strict irrationality preserves explanatory power: akrasia differs meaningfully from impulsive chaos or pathological compulsion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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