Epistemic Akrasia Horowitz, Sophie
Noûs (Bloomington, Indiana),
December 2014, Volume:
48, Issue:
4
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
The importance of the Non-Akrasia Constraint is brought out by recent literature on "higher-order evidence"--evidence about what evidence one has, or what one's evidence supports. Much of this debate ...has focused on the question of what to believe when one becomes rationally highly confident that P on the basis of some evidence, E, and then receives further (misleading) evidence to the effect that E does not support P. Although there is disagreement as to whether this new evidence should cause one to reduce confidence in P, the major positions that have been defended thus far in the higher-order evidence debate agree that ideally rational agents should respect the Non-Akrasia Constraint.
This article explores two concepts of akrasia and their relation to the ascription of responsibility in Douglas Husak’s theory of criminal responsibility. Ever since Plato’s Protagoras, the problem ...of akrasia has been tightly related to the issue of moral knowledge. By using influential texts of ancient and Christian ethics, as well as contemporary research on akratic behavior, this article outlines a different conception of akrasia, one that is based on intrapersonal conflict. In his theory, Husak employs the concept of akrasia related to moral knowledge-ignorance, albeit sourcing its presuppositions from contemporary skeptics rather than from ancient philosophy. Yet, Husak’s theory is not skeptical. The article highlights the main drawbacks of this theory. These drawbacks are grounded in Husak’s conception of the akratic agent and the ascription of responsibility to such an agent. Their analysis reveals the advantages of the concept of akrasia based on intrapersonal conflict for constructing a non-skeptical theory of criminal responsibility.
Straipsnyje tyrinėjamos dvi akrasijos sampratos ir jų santykis su atsakomybės priskyrimu Douglaso Husako baudžiamosios atsakomybės teorijoje. Nuo Platono Protagoro laikų akrasijos problema filosofijoje glaudžiai siejama su moralinio žinojimo klausimu. Pasitelkiant Antikos bei krikščioniškajai etikai itin reikšmingus tekstus, taip pat šiuolaikinius akratiško elgesio tyrinėjimus, straipsnyje išryškinama kita – vidiniu konfliktu paremta akrasijos samprata. Husako teorijoje taikoma akrasijos samprata akcentuoja moralinį žinojimą-nežinojimą. Tačiau jos prielaidų šaltinis yra ne Antika, o šiuolaikiniai moralinės atsakomybės priskyrimo skeptikai, nors paties Husako teorija nėra skeptinė. Darbe išryškinami esminiai Husako teorijos trūkumai. Šie trūkumai atsiremia į Husako akratiško veikėjo sampratą ir kaip tokiam veikėjui priskiriama atsakomybė. Jų nagrinėjimas leidžia parodyti vidiniu konfliktu grįstos akrasijos sampratos pranašumus konstruojant neskeptinę baudžiamosios atsakomybės teoriją.
I formulate a resilient paradox about epistemic rationality, discuss and reject various solutions, and sketch a way out. The paradox exemplifies a tension between a wide range of views of epistemic ...justification, on the one hand, and
enkratic requirements
on rationality, on the other. According to the enkratic requirements, certain mismatched doxastic states are irrational, such as believing
p
, while believing that it is irrational for one to believe
p.
I focus on an
evidentialist
view of justification on which a doxastic state regarding a proposition
p
is epistemically rational or justified just in case it tracks the degree to which one’s evidence supports
p
. If it is possible to have certain kinds of misleading evidence (as I argue it is), then evidentialism and the enkratic requirements come into conflict. Yet, both have been defended as platitudinous. After discussing and rejecting three solutions, I sketch an account that rejects the enkratic requirements, while nevertheless explaining our sense that epistemic akrasia is a distinct kind of epistemic failure. Central to the account is distinguishing between two evaluative perspectives, one having to do with the relevant kind of success (proportioning one’s doxastic states to the evidence), the other having to do with manifesting good dispositions. The problem with akratic subjects, I argue, is that they manifest dispositions to fail to correctly respond to a special class of
conclusive
and
conspicuous
reasons.
This article explores two concepts of akrasia and their relation to the ascription of responsibility in Douglas Husak’s theory of criminal responsibility. Ever since Plato’s Protagoras, the problem ...of akrasia has been tightly related to the issue of moral knowledge. By using influential texts of ancient and Christian ethics, as well as contemporary research on akratic behavior, this article outlines a different conception of akrasia, one that is based on intrapersonal conflict. In his theory, Husak employs the concept of akrasia related to moral knowledge-ignorance, albeit sourcing its presuppositions from contemporary skeptics rather than from ancient philosophy. Yet, Husak’s theory is not skeptical. The article highlights the main drawbacks of this theory. These drawbacks are grounded in Husak’s conception of the akratic agent and the ascription of responsibility to such an agent. Their analysis reveals the advantages of the concept of akrasia based on intrapersonal conflict for constructing a non-skeptical theory of criminal responsibility.
Straipsnyje tyrinėjamos dvi akrasijos sampratos ir jų santykis su atsakomybės priskyrimu Douglaso Husako baudžiamosios atsakomybės teorijoje. Nuo Platono Protagoro laikų akrasijos problema filosofijoje glaudžiai siejama su moralinio žinojimo klausimu. Pasitelkiant Antikos bei krikščioniškajai etikai itin reikšmingus tekstus, taip pat šiuolaikinius akratiško elgesio tyrinėjimus, straipsnyje išryškinama kita – vidiniu konfliktu paremta akrasijos samprata. Husako teorijoje taikoma akrasijos samprata akcentuoja moralinį žinojimą-nežinojimą. Tačiau jos prielaidų šaltinis yra ne Antika, o šiuolaikiniai moralinės atsakomybės priskyrimo skeptikai, nors paties Husako teorija nėra skeptinė. Darbe išryškinami esminiai Husako teorijos trūkumai. Šie trūkumai atsiremia į Husako akratiško veikėjo sampratą ir kaip tokiam veikėjui priskiriama atsakomybė. Jų nagrinėjimas leidžia parodyti vidiniu konfliktu grįstos akrasijos sampratos pranašumus konstruojant neskeptinę baudžiamosios atsakomybės teoriją.
In this paper I will present a puzzle about epistemic akrasia, and I will use that puzzle to motivate accepting some non-standard views about the nature of epistemological judgment. The puzzle is ...that while it seems obvious that epistemic akrasia must be irrational, the claim that epistemic akrasia is always irrational amounts to the claim that a certain sort of justified false belief—a justified false belief about what one ought to believe—is impossible. But justified false beliefs seem to be possible in any domain, and it's hard to see why beliefs about what one ought to believe should be an exception. I will argue that when we get clearer about what sort of psychological state epistemic akrasia is, we can resolve the puzzle in favor of the intuitive view that epistemic akrasia is always irrational.
Does Locke Have an Akrasia Problem? Moauro, Leonardo; Rickless, Samuel C.
Journal of modern philosophy,
11/2019, Volume:
1, Issue:
1
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Open access
Starting in the second edition of the Essay, Locke becomes interested in the phenomenon of akrasia, or weakness of will. As he conceives it, akrasia occurs when we will something contrary to what we ...acknowledge to be our greater good. This commitment represents an important shift from the first edition of the Essay, where Locke argues that the will is always determined by a judgement of our greater good. But traces of the first-edition view are present even in the second edition, so much so that it is unclear whether Locke is entitled to an explanation of akrasia at all. In this essay, we propose a new interpretation of Locke’s account of akrasia, one that mediates between his seemingly conflicting commitments. We believe that this interpretation represents an improvement over past interpretations, which make Locke’s conception of akrasia too weak to do the work he intends for it. Moreover, getting Locke’s account of akrasia right allows us to gain clarity on his view of the will, a subtle and ultimately quite plausible part of his moral psychology.
Explaining Higher-order Defeat Tiozzo, Marco
Acta analytica : philosophy and psychology,
09/2023, Volume:
38, Issue:
3
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Open access
Higher-order evidence appears to have the ability to defeat rational belief. It is not obvious, however, why exactly the defeat happens. In this paper, I consider two competing explanations of ...higher-order defeat: the “Objective Higher-Order Defeat Explanation” and the “Subjective Higher-Order Defat Explanation.” According to the former explanation, possessing sufficiently strong higher-order evidence to indicate that one’s belief about p fails to be rational is necessary and sufficient for defeating one’s belief about p. I argue that this type of explanation is defective or at best collapses into the other type of explanation. According to the latter explanation, Believing that one’s belief about p fails to be rational (in response to higher-order evidence about p) is necessary and sufficient for defeating one’s belief about p. I argue that this type of explanation is better suited to explain higher-order defeat given that what one is rational to believe partly depends on the relations among one’s doxastic attitudes. Finally, I address an peculiar feature of the Subjective Higher-Order Defeat Explanation: higher-order defeat becomes contingent on one’s response to the higher-order evidence.
PDF
