Hubbry Logo
AkrasiaAkrasiaMain
Open search
Akrasia
Community hub
Akrasia
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Akrasia
Akrasia
Akrasia
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Akrasia[a] refers to the phenomenon of acting against one's better judgment—the state in which one intentionally performs an action while simultaneously believing that a different course of action would be better.[1][2] Sometimes translated as "weakness of will" or "incontinence," akrasia describes the paradoxical human experience of knowingly choosing what one judges to be the inferior option.

History

[edit]
Portrait in marble of Socrates. In the Protagoras, Plato has Socrates examine the concept of akrasia.

In Plato's Protagoras dialogue, Socrates asks precisely how it is possible that, if one judges action A to be the best course of action, why one would do anything other than A.[3]

Classical answers

[edit]

In Plato's Protagoras, Socrates presents a radical thesis that fundamentally denies the existence of akrasia. His famous declaration, "No one goes willingly toward the bad" (οὐδεὶς ἑκὼν κακός), encapsulates a view known as Socratic intellectualism.[4]

According to Socrates, genuine akrasia is impossible because human action necessarily follows knowledge. His argument proceeds through several interconnected premises:

  1. The Unity of Knowledge and Virtue: Socrates maintains that virtue is knowledge. Specifically, virtue is knowledge of what is truly good and beneficial. To know the good is necessarily to pursue it, as knowledge compels action.[5]
  2. The Natural Orientation Toward the Good: Human beings, by their very nature, seek what they perceive to be good for themselves. No rational agent deliberately chooses what they genuinely believe to be harmful or inferior to available alternatives.[6][7]
  3. The Power of Complete Knowledge: When one conducts a thorough, all-things-considered evaluation of a situation, this assessment yields complete knowledge of each potential action's outcomes and relative worth. This knowledge is inextricably linked to well-developed principles of the good.

Given the above premises, Socrates concludes that it is psychologically impossible for someone who truly knows what is best to act otherwise. The person who possesses genuine knowledge of the good will inevitably pursue it, as this pursuit aligns with both human nature and rational necessity.

Therefore, in the Socratic framework, what appears to be akrasia—acting against one's better judgment—is actually a form of ignorance. Actions that seem to contradict what is objectively best must result from incomplete knowledge of the facts, inadequate understanding of what constitutes the genuine good, or failure to properly calculate the consequences of one's actions.

Aristotle recognizes that the possibility of acting contrary to one's best judgment is a staple of commonsense and a common human experience.[8] Aristotle dedicates Book VII of the Nicomachean Ethics to an examination of akrasia, adopting a distinctly empirical approach that contrasts sharply with Socratic intellectualism.[9] He distanced himself from the Socratic position by distinguishing different mental faculties and their roles in action. He argues that akrasia results from the one's opinion (δόξα, doxa), not one's desire (epithumia) per se. The crucial difference here is that while desire is a natural condition of the body incapable of truth or falsity, opinion is a belief that may or may not be true, a cognitive state. Therefore, akratic failures can be explained by the incorrectness of one's best judgment rather than a failure to attempt to act according to one's best judgment. When an agent's best judgment is a false belief, it does not have the power to compel one that Socrates attributed to knowledge of what is genuinely best.

For Aristotle, the opposite of akrasia is enkrateia, a state where an agent has power over their desires.[10] Aristotle considered one could be in a state of akrasia with respect to money or temper or glory, but that its core relation was to bodily enjoyment.[11] Its causes could be weakness of will, or an impetuous refusal to think.[12] At the same time he did not consider it a vice because it is not so much a product of moral choice as a failure to act on one's better knowledge.[13]

For Augustine of Hippo, incontinence was not so much a problem of knowledge but of the will; he considered it a matter of everyday experience that men incontinently choose lesser over greater goods.[14]

Contemporary approaches

[edit]

Donald Davidson attempted to answer the question by first criticizing earlier thinkers who wanted to limit the scope of akrasia to agents who despite having reached a rational decision were somehow swerved off their "desired" tracks. Indeed, Davidson expands akrasia to include any judgment that is reached but not fulfilled, whether it be as a result of an opinion, a real or imagined good, or a moral belief. "[T]he puzzle I shall discuss depends only on the attitude or belief of the agent...my subject concerns evaluative judgments, whether they are analyzed cognitively, prescriptively, or otherwise." Thus, he expands akrasia to include cases in which the agent seeks to fulfill desires, for example, but end up denying themselves the pleasure they have deemed most choice-worthy.

Davidson sees the problem as one of reconciling the following apparently inconsistent triad:

  • If an agent believes A to be better than B, then they want to do A more than B.
  • If an agent wants to do A more than B, then they will do A rather than B if they only do one.
  • Sometimes an agent acts against their better judgment.

Davidson solves the problem by saying that, when people act in this way they temporarily believe that the worse course of action is better because they have not made an all-things-considered judgment but only a judgment based on a subset of possible considerations.

Another contemporary philosopher, Amélie Rorty, has tackled the problem by distilling out akrasia's many forms. She contends that akrasia is manifested in different stages of the practical reasoning process. She enumerates four types of akrasia: akrasia of direction or aim, of interpretation, of irrationality, and of character. She separates the practical reasoning process into four steps, showing the breakdown that may occur between each step and how each constitutes an akratic state.

Another explanation is that there are different forms of motivation that can conflict with each other. Throughout the ages, many have identified a conflict between reason and emotion, which might make it possible to believe that one should do A rather than B, but still end up wanting to do B more than A.

Psychologist George Ainslie argues that akrasia results from the empirically verified phenomenon of hyperbolic discounting, which causes us to make different judgments close to a reward than we will when further from it.[15]

Weakness of will

[edit]

Richard Holton argues that weakness of the will involves revising one's resolutions too easily. Under this view, it is possible to act against one's better judgment (that is, be akratic) without being weak-willed. Suppose, for example, Sarah judges that taking revenge upon a murderer is not the best course of action but makes the resolution to take revenge anyway and sticks to that resolution. According to Holton, Sarah behaves akratically but does not show weakness of will.

Legacy

[edit]

In the structural division of Dante's Inferno, incontinence is the sin punished in the second through fifth circles.[16] The mutual incontinence of lust was for Dante the lightest of the deadly sins,[17] even if its lack of self-control would open the road to deeper layers of Hell.

Akrasia appeared later as a character in Spenser's The Faerie Queene, representing the incontinence of lust, followed in the next canto by a study of that of anger;[18] and as late as Jane Austen the sensibility of such figures as Marianne Dashwood would be treated as a form of (spiritual) incontinence.[19]

But with the triumph of Romanticism, the incontinent choice of feeling over reason became increasingly valorised in Western culture.[20] Blake wrote, "those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained".[21] Encouraged by Rousseau, there was a rise of what Arnold J. Toynbee called "an abandon (ακρατεια)...a state of mind in which antinomianism is accepted—consciously or unconsciously, in theory or in practice—as a substitute for creativeness".[22]

A peak of such akrasia was perhaps reached in the 1960s cult of letting it all hang out—of breakdown, acting out, and emotional self-indulgence and drama.[23] Partly in reaction, the proponents of emotional intelligence looked back to Aristotle in the search for impulse control and delayed gratification[24]—to his dictum that "a person is called continent or incontinent according as his reason is or is not in control".[25]

See also

[edit]

Footnotes

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Akrasia

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Akrasia (Ancient Greek: ἀκρασία, "incontinence" or "lack of ") is a philosophical concept denoting the phenomenon in which an individual knowingly acts against their own better judgment or rational of what is good or right, often succumbing to passion, desire, or impulse. Originating in , akrasia became a pivotal topic in ethical debates about the relationship between , , and action. In Plato's Protagoras, rejects the possibility of akrasia, arguing that true of the good inherently motivates correct behavior, such that no one willingly chooses what they genuinely believe to be worse; apparent cases of acting against judgment stem from ignorance or miscalculation rather than weakness. This Socratic intellectualism posits as a unified form of , challenging popular views that portrayed as feeble in the face of overwhelming pleasures or pains. Aristotle provides the most detailed classical analysis in Book VII of the Nicomachean Ethics, where he accepts akrasia as real while reconciling it with Socratic elements. He defines the akratic (incontinent) person as one who, despite possessing that an action is bad, performs it "as a result of passion," leading to and subsequent —unlike the vicious person, who acts without remorse. Aristotle differentiates two forms: (acting contrary to prior due to sudden passion) and impetuosity (failing to deliberate altogether, rushing into action). He further specifies that akrasia typically involves bodily pleasures like those of touch and taste, rather than noble pursuits, and views it as a curable condition midway between and . The concept extended to later ancient schools, such as the Stoics, who largely denied akrasia by emphasizing rational assent over passion, and influenced medieval and early modern thinkers like Augustine, who linked it to the will's corruption by . In , akrasia—often termed "weakness of will"—remains a core issue in and action theory, prompting debates on whether it undermines rational choice theory, involves partitioned practical reasoning, or reveals tensions between intention and desire; influential analyses explore its implications for , , and ethical responsibility.

Definition and Etymology

Linguistic Origins

The term akrasia derives from the word ἀκρασία (akrasía), literally meaning "lack of " or "incontinence," formed by the privative prefix ἀ- (a-, "without") combined with κράτος (krátos, "power" or "strength"). The earliest attested uses of akrasia and its cognates appear in classical , notably in Plato's (525a4) and multiple instances in the (e.g., 379d7, 382c1). Over time, the term evolved in works by and to signify moral or appetitive weakness, describing the failure to exercise control despite of what is right. Translating akrasia into Latin as incontinentia preserved its core sense of lacking restraint, influencing renderings in later European languages such as English "incontinence" or "weakness of will." This posed challenges in capturing the precise philosophical nuance of against one's better , distinct from mere excess. Notably, akrasia contrasts with akolasía (ἀκολασία), which denotes unrestraint or licentiousness—a involving deliberate without internal conflict. The term's linguistic roots provided a foundation for its philosophical development in and , where it highlighted tensions in human rationality and desire.

Conceptual Definition

The term akrasia (ἀκρασία), meaning "lack of mastery" or "incontinence," denotes the voluntary performance of an action that contravenes one's own rational judgment about what is best to do. This concept captures a state of in which an agent, fully aware of the superior course of action, nonetheless yields to immediate desires or impulses, resulting in behavior that undermines their longer-term interests or moral principles. Unlike mere whimsy or habitual patterns, akrasia specifically highlights the agent's recognition of the discrepancy between their choice and their better reasoning, marking it as a of rather than a lack of . At its core, akrasia comprises three essential elements: possession of regarding the good or optimal action, a deliberate and intentional selection of the inferior alternative, and the absence of any external compulsion or duress that would negate voluntariness. The agent must not only understand what ought to be done but actively endorse that in their practical reasoning, yet proceed to act otherwise due to overpowering appetites or emotions. This distinguishes akrasia from involuntary errors, emphasizing the agent's agency in the moment of . Akrasia must be differentiated from non-akratic failures of action. It is not mere , where the agent errs due to a deficient understanding of the facts or the good, nor compulsion, in which external forces override personal volition entirely. Similarly, it contrasts with akolasia—often translated as "intemperance" or "licentiousness"—which involves unrestrained pursuit of pleasure without any accompanying or subsequent regret, as the agent fully embraces their choices without viewing them as contrary to reason. In akrasia, the tension between desire and persists, often leading to , whereas akolasia reflects a settled toward devoid of such dissonance.

Historical Perspectives

Ancient Greek Philosophy

In ancient Greek philosophy, akrasia, or weakness of will, emerged as a pivotal ethical issue, particularly in the works of , , and , where it was examined as the tension between knowledge and action in moral . The term itself, derived from a- (without) and kratos (strength or control), denoted acting against one's better judgment, a phenomenon observed in earlier literature but philosophically dissected starting with . Socrates, as portrayed in Plato's Protagoras, famously denied the possibility of akrasia, asserting that no one willingly does wrong if they truly possess of the good. In this dialogue, equates with , arguing that apparent cases of akrasia stem from rather than weakness, as a person who knows what is best will always pursue it, much like one cannot be compelled to touch a hot iron knowingly. This Socratic intellectualism posits that moral failings arise solely from false beliefs about what benefits the soul, rendering true akrasia impossible. Plato, building on but critiquing this view in dialogues like the and , allowed for akrasia by introducing notions of partial or unstable and the division of the . In the , Plato distinguishes true () from mere true opinion (), suggesting that akrasia occurs when unstable beliefs about the good fail under pressure, preventing full rational commitment. In the , he develops a tripartite model—rational, , and appetitive parts—where akrasia results from the appetites or spirit overpowering reason, as in Leontius's inability to resist gazing at corpses despite rational revulsion (Republic IV, 439e–440a). This resolution explains moral conflict without denying knowledge's power, emphasizing the need for harmonious governance through philosophical education. Aristotle, in Book VII of the Nicomachean Ethics, accepts akrasia as a real phenomenon distinct from vice (akolasia), positioning it as an intermediate state between self-control (enkrateia) and licentiousness, where one knows the good but fails to act on it due to overwhelming pleasure or pain. He analyzes it through the practical syllogism, where the incontinent person (akrates) grasps the universal premise (e.g., "sweet foods are unhealthy") but the particular premise (e.g., "this cake is sweet") is overridden by appetite, leading to action against judgment. Aristotle illustrates this with examples like dietary temptation, where one yields to eating excess sweets despite knowing it harms health, or anger-driven akrasia, as when a person strikes another in rage contrary to rational restraint (1149b5–1150a8). Unlike full vice, akrasia involves internal conflict and partial virtue, making the akrates more forgivable than the vicious but less praiseworthy than the continent.

Post-Classical Developments

In Roman Stoicism, the concept of akrasia was reframed away from the Aristotelian model of conflict between rational and non-rational parts, instead portraying it as a failure in the rational assent to impressions, with an emphasis on self-discipline through disciplined judgment. Seneca, in his Letters to Lucilius, described such failures as arising from unchecked passions that mislead the mind, advocating rigorous training in to align actions with reason without positing internal divisions. similarly rejected akrasia as a genuine phenomenon, viewing apparent instances as errors in assenting to false impressions rather than weakness of will, and stressed the Stoic practice of examining and withholding assent to achieve unyielding . Medieval Christian philosophy integrated akrasia into theological frameworks, particularly through Augustine's Confessions, where he depicted his own pre-conversion torment—knowing the good yet unable to pursue it—as a symptom of the will's corruption from , rendering humans prone to yielding to lower desires without . Augustine linked this weakness to the inherited guilt of Adam's fall, framing akrasia not merely as personal failing but as a universal condition exacerbating the soul's bondage to sin until liberated by God's illumination. , building on this in the Summa Theologica (I-II, q. 77-78), distinguished akrasia from by the degree of consent: akrasia involves an incomplete or passion-overpowered consent to wrongdoing, preserving some rational recognition of the good, whereas sin requires deliberate, uncoerced endorsement of evil. Renaissance humanism shifted toward skeptical and experiential interpretations of akrasia, emphasizing human frailty over rigid metaphysical or doctrinal explanations. Desiderius Erasmus, in the Enchiridion Militis Christiani, portrayed akrasia as a common moral lapse addressable through practical Christian discipline infused with classical (including Stoic) exercises in self-examination, viewing it as a hurdle to pious living rather than an irreconcilable soul conflict. , in his Essays—notably "Of Experience"—approached akrasia skeptically as an inevitable expression of human inconsistency and limitation, drawing from personal reflection to argue that rigid pursuits of perfect often exacerbate frailty, and instead recommended humble of one's variable to foster wiser living. These developments represented key shifts from the Aristotelian focus on metaphysical soul divisions toward theological integrations of akrasia with original sin, divine grace, and free will's vulnerabilities in Christian thought, evolving further in humanism to psychological and skeptical emphases on empirical human experience and practical moderation.

Philosophical Analyses

Paradox of Akrasia

The paradox of akrasia, rooted in Socratic intellectualism, poses the fundamental question of how an agent can possess genuine knowledge of the good yet voluntarily act against it. Socratic intellectualism asserts that virtue is knowledge and that no one errs willingly, implying that actions are always guided by what the agent believes to be best; thus, any deviation from the good must result from a failure of understanding rather than a conflict between knowledge and desire. This leads to the core puzzle: if true knowledge inherently motivates correct action, can passion or desire ever overpower it, or is so-called akrasia merely disguised ignorance? For instance, the paradox contrasts the "strength of desire" that pulls toward immediate gratification with the "strength of belief" in long-term good, suggesting that apparent weakness of will undermines the idea that cognition alone determines behavior. Scholars distinguish between clear-eyed akrasia, where the agent maintains full, conscious of the better course throughout the action, and partial akrasia, such as momentary or failure to deliberate, where is temporarily inaccessible or not actively considered. In clear-eyed cases, the agent explicitly judges one action superior but proceeds with the inferior one due to overwhelming impulse, exemplifying the in its purest form. Partial akrasia, by contrast, involves lapses like the impetuous akratic who skips reflection and acts on passion without fully engaging their , blurring the line between true weakness and cognitive error. This paradox carries profound implications for , as it challenges the reliability of knowledge in guiding conduct and questions whether belief alone constitutes motivational force. In , it undermines motivational internalism—the that moral judgments necessarily provide for action—by illustrating cases where agents fail to be moved by their own convictions despite clear . Ultimately, the phenomenon highlights akrasia's central role in , revealing tensions between rational deliberation and non-rational influences like , and prompting inquiries into the architecture of human agency.

Theories of Explanation

Philosophical theories of akrasia seek to explain how agents can act against their better judgment, addressing the apparent paradox that rational action should align with what one knows to be best. These explanations generally fall into compatibilist, hierarchical, non-intellectualist, and evaluative frameworks, each reconciling the phenomenon with broader accounts of agency and motivation. Compatibilist theories, such as Donald Davidson's account of weakness of the will, maintain that akrasia is possible within a causal theory of action where behavior is determined by the primary reason that motivates it, even if that reason conflicts with the agent's all-things-considered judgment. Davidson argues that in akratic action, the agent holds true beliefs about what is best but fails at a higher-order level to apply that judgment effectively, resulting in the motivating reason prevailing due to its causal strength rather than per se. This view preserves the compatibility of akrasia with intentional agency by treating the conflict as a contingent failure in the integration of reasons, not a denial of causation by belief-desire pairs. In contrast, hierarchical models of the will, developed by , explain akrasia as an between first-order desires (immediate impulses) and second-order desires (reflective endorsements of those impulses), without requiring strict with . Frankfurt posits that free and rational action occurs when higher-order volitions align with and endorse the effective first-order desires; akrasia arises when a lower-order desire overrides the agent's endorsed will, leading to action that the agent identifies with less fully. This framework highlights akrasia as a breakdown in the identification process, where the agent acts unwillingly despite knowing better, emphasizing the structure of desires over simple motivational strength. Non-intellectualist explanations, prominently featured in 's analysis, attribute akrasia to that overpower or distort rational without negating the agent's . In the , describes akrasia kata logismon (incontinence with respect to reasoning) as a condition where intense desires temporarily suspend the full activation of practical reason, akin to a perceptual that alters the apparent goodness of immediate ends during . thus interfere non-cognitively, making the forbidden action seem more compelling in the moment, though the agent retains latent of the better course. This approach underscores akrasia as a motivational defeat rather than an intellectual error, distinguishing it from by the persistence of rational insight. Evaluative theories frame akrasia as a substantive misjudgment of an action's overall value, particularly regarding ends rather than means, often involving the undervaluation of or long-term . For instance, in cases of temporal discounting, the agent evaluates immediate pleasures as superior to known benefits, effectively revising their judgment under the influence of present-oriented biases without denying the factual knowledge involved. This perspective, echoed in critiques of , treats apparent akrasia not as a motivational lapse but as a flawed practical evaluation where the agent prioritizes short-term ends, aligning action with a momentarily altered assessment of worth. Such theories emphasize that true akrasia may dissolve into rational but myopic upon closer scrutiny of evaluative standards.

Modern Interpretations

In Analytic Philosophy

In , the treatment of akrasia has focused on clarifying its logical structure, linguistic underpinnings, and compatibility with rational agency, often building on but departing from Aristotelian roots where akrasia denotes acting against one's better judgment. Early 20th-century behaviorist approaches, exemplified by , dismissed akrasia as a pseudo-problem arising from a in conceiving mental states as separate "ghosts" causing bodily actions. In (1949), Ryle argued that apparent cases of weakness of will reflect irresoluteness in dispositions to act intelligently, rather than any genuine inner conflict between knowing and doing, thereby rejecting dualistic explanations that posit conflicting mental processes. A pivotal advancement came with Donald Davidson's 1969 essay "How Is Weakness of the Will Possible?", which rehabilitated akrasia as a coherent phenomenon within a causal theory of action. Davidson contended that incontinent action—akrasia—occurs when an agent acts intentionally on a primary reason (e.g., an immediate desire) that conflicts with their all-things-considered judgment based on secondary reasons (e.g., long-term values), thus resolving the apparent paradox without invoking irrationality at the core of agency. This framework emphasized that akrasia involves no violation of logical consistency in beliefs but rather a practical divergence in motivation, influencing subsequent debates on the rationality of such actions. Critiques of Davidson's account, notably from Alfred R. Mele, have centered on the role of and in akrasia, questioning whether all instances require full awareness or blameworthiness. Mele, in works like Irrationality: An Essay on Akrasia, Self-Deception, and Self-Control (1987), argued that akrasia can manifest in intentional behaviors driven by temporary motivations overriding better judgments, but not all cases demand deliberate conflict; some may involve non-culpable lapses where the agent fails to align actions with resolved intentions without excusing . These debates highlight tensions between viewing akrasia as a strict intentional deviation versus a broader of motivational failures, with Mele emphasizing empirical psychological evidence to support the possibility of non-volitional elements in seemingly akratic acts. In the 2020s, analytic discussions have extended akrasia into , particularly through the concept of epistemic akrasia—believing or inferring against one's evidential better judgment—linking it to failures of intellectual virtues like . Recent analyses, such as David Christensen's 2022 paper "Epistemic Akrasia: No Apology Required," defend the permissibility of certain epistemic akratic states under higher-order evidence constraints, arguing they do not undermine epistemic responsibility if aligned with virtues of . Similarly, explorations in virtue-theoretic terms portray epistemic akrasia as a opposing traits like intellectual , with implications for how agents navigate conflicting doxastic commitments in rational formation.

Interdisciplinary Applications

In , akrasia has been modeled through theories of failure, notably Roy Baumeister's framework, which posits that operates as a limited resource that can be temporarily exhausted through prior exertion, leading to weakened resistance against impulses akin to akrasia. This 1998 theory drew from experiments showing diminished performance on subsequent self-regulatory tasks after initial efforts, such as resisting tempting foods. However, post-2010s replication efforts revealed significant challenges, with multi-site studies finding only small or inconsistent effects, prompting critiques that may overestimate resource limitations and underestimate motivational factors in akrasia-like behaviors. high-powered replications, such as the 2016 multilab preregistered study (Hagger et al.), found only a very small (d ≈ 0.04), contrasting with the initial 2010 meta-analysis's d = 0.62 across 198 tests, highlighting the need for refined models incorporating individual differences in willpower recovery. Neuroscience has illuminated akrasia through , revealing conflicts between the —responsible for executive control and long-term planning—and the , which drives immediate reward-seeking. studies demonstrate that during dilemmas, such as resisting immediate , heightened limbic activation (e.g., in the and ) correlates with impulsive choices, while prefrontal hypoactivation predicts failure, mirroring akrasia. In research, fMRI studies on delay —a where participants choose between smaller immediate rewards and larger delayed ones—as reviewed in 2020 (Zhang et al.), showed altered prefrontal-limbic connectivity in substance users, with reduced engagement linked to steeper discounting rates and compulsive behaviors. For instance, cocaine-dependent individuals exhibited weaker ventromedial prefrontal responses to future rewards, exacerbating akrasia by prioritizing short-term highs over recovery goals. Behavioral economics applies akrasia to policy design via , developed by and , which uses subtle environmental cues to counter and promote better long-term decisions without restricting choice. Their 2008 framework highlighted automatic enrollment in retirement savings plans as a nudge addressing akrasia, where leads workers to forgo 401(k) contributions despite recognizing their value; default opt-in increased participation rates from 20-40% to over 90% in U.S. firms. In the , extensions of have targeted climate inaction, another form of akrasia where individuals undervalue future environmental costs; for example, Austria's 2021 policy making green energy the default tariff led to around 80-90% of customers choosing green options, a substantial increase from prior levels. leveraging social norms to overcome on emissions reduction. Emerging interdisciplinary work extends akrasia to AI ethics, where algorithmic biases replicate human weaknesses of will, such as inconsistent adherence to ethical guidelines in decision-making systems. A 2024 analysis argues that AI models trained on human data inherit akrasia-like flaws, leading to biased outputs in high-stakes applications like hiring or lending, where short-term optimization overrides long-term fairness principles. For instance, facial recognition algorithms have shown higher error rates for underrepresented groups due to "impulsive" data prioritization, prompting calls for nudges in AI design, such as default equity audits, to mitigate these inherited vulnerabilities.

Enkrateia and Self-Control

Enkrateia, derived from the Greek term meaning "self-mastery" or "continence," denotes the capacity to exert control over one's desires and appetites through deliberate effort, distinguishing it from effortless virtue. In Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, enkrateia involves the enkrates—a person who restrains impulses not out of innate disposition but through rational mastery, positioning it as an intermediate state between vice and full moral excellence. This concept stands in direct opposition to akrasia, where enkrateia fails and actions deviate from reasoned due to overwhelming desires. Aristotle outlines a spectrum of character types concerning : at one extreme lies akolasia, the of unrestrained indulgence without any internal resistance; occupies the middle ground, requiring ongoing vigilance to align behavior with ; and represents the ideal of temperance, where harmony between reason and desire occurs naturally without conflict. In modern psychological research, enkrateia finds parallels in theories of self-regulation, which emphasize the effortful management of impulses to achieve long-term goals. Angela Duckworth's framework of grit, introduced in her 2016 book, operationalizes these traits through empirical measures of perseverance and passion, demonstrating how such self-control predicts success in domains like education and professional achievement, much like Aristotle's enkratic discipline.

Akrasia in Ethical Decision-Making

In moral philosophy, akrasia often serves as a partial excusing condition for ethical lapses, mitigating by highlighting a conflict between judgment and action, though it does not fully absolve . Philosophers argue that akratic agents remain responsible because they possess of the right course but fail to act on it due to weakness, distinguishing this from or compulsion. In contrast, Kantian duty-based ethics views akrasia as incompatible with full , emphasizing unwavering adherence to categorical imperatives; any deviation, even if momentary, incurs complete since rational agents are expected to align will with duty without exception. Within , posits akrasia as a deviation from the , where incontinent actions disrupt the balanced pursuit of , or human flourishing, by prioritizing fleeting pleasures over rational virtue. This undermines the agent's character, as repeated akrasia erodes the practical wisdom () essential for ethical living. Contemporary neo-Aristotelians, such as Julia Annas, extend this by framing character formation as a skill-like process through , where overcoming akrasia fosters virtues that integrate and for sustained moral excellence. Akrasia manifests in applied ethics, notably bioethics, where patient non-compliance—such as ignoring treatment regimens despite understanding their benefits—exemplifies weakness of will, prompting discussions on self-binding mechanisms like Ulysses contracts to enforce future adherence. In environmental ethics, recent studies highlight akrasia in climate inaction, where individuals acknowledge the urgency of reducing emissions but opt for immediate conveniences, like driving instead of using , perpetuating collective harm despite widespread knowledge. Recent 2025 philosophical inquiries into AI moral agency invoke akrasia to question whether artificial systems can exhibit true weakness of will or merely simulate it, raising concerns about accountability in ethically sensitive decisions like autonomous .

References

  1. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.7.vii.html
  2. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/protagoras.html
  3. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/
  4. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/6/2/419
  5. https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1195&context=thesis
  6. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/akrasia
  7. https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/akrasia/v-1
  8. http://biblehub.com/greek/192.htm
  9. https://open.metu.edu.tr/bitstream/handle/11511/99464/B%25C3%25BC%25C5%259Fra%2520Akk%25C3%25B6kler%2520Karatekeli%2520-%2520%28PhD%2520Thesis%29%2520THE%2520CONCEPT%2520OF%2520AKRASIA%2520IN%2520ANCIENT%2520GREEK%2520PHILOSOPHY.pdf
  10. https://www.brepolsonline.net/doi/pdf/10.1484/J.BPM.2.303896
  11. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/aquinas-and-the-nicomachean-ethics/aquinas-on-incontinence-and-psychological-weakness/A0A0B0FCFDB70AAA778D4BCEB77B8FBF
  12. https://dokumen.pub/akrasia-in-greek-philosophy-from-socrates-to-plotinus-9004156704-9789004156708.html
  13. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/weakness-will/
  14. https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/downloads/wd376416r
  15. https://philosophy.northwestern.edu/community/nustep/08/papers/Doucet.pdf
  16. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27504240
  17. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0177:text=Meno
  18. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0178%3Atext%3DProt.%3Asection%3D352b
  19. https://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/9720/1/DJBergerDecember2005.pdf
  20. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0178%3Atext%3DProt.%3Asection%3D357c
  21. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0177%3Atext%3DMeno%3Asection%3D97b
  22. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0168%3Atext%3DRepublic%3Abook%3D4%3Asection%3D439e
  23. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c762/fd525c7bcc4f1e7707140a99ed8eb3f7adcc.pdf
  24. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0168%3Atext%3DRepublic%3Abook%3D4%3Asection%3D441a
  25. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abook%3D7%3Asection%3D1145b
  26. https://philarchive.org/archive/ERGAAC
  27. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abook%3D7%3Asection%3D1149b
  28. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abook%3D7%3Asection%3D1150a
  29. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/seneca/
  30. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/
  31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40041091
  32. https://iep.utm.edu/erasmus/
  33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265984760_Weakness_of_the_Will_in_Renaissance_and_Reformation_Thought_by_Risto_Saarinen_review
  34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt285251
  35. https://www.academia.edu/80434965/Akrasia_in_the_Early_Modern_Thought
  36. https://bgillette.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Brandon-S-Gillette-Cognitive-Akrasia-in-Moral-Psychology-and-Normative-Motivation.pdf
  37. https://philarchive.org/archive/MILWOW-2
  38. https://academic.oup.com/book/3354/chapter/144430774
  39. https://philarchive.org/archive/MARIKI
  40. https://philpapers.org/rec/MELASA-2
  41. http://fitelson.org/seminar/tennenbaum.pdf
  42. https://academic.oup.com/book/11252/chapter/159792643
  43. https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-details.php?id=285672&a=t&first_name=Gilbert&author=Ryle&concept=Weak%20Will
  44. https://philpapers.org/rec/DAVHIW-4
  45. http://www.math-wiki.com/images/f/f6/Donald_davidson.pdf
  46. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290243985_How_Is_Weakness_of_the_Will_Possible
  47. https://www.amazon.com/Irrationality-Essay-Akrasia-Self-Deception-Self-Control/dp/0195080017
  48. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/nous.12441
  49. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2025.2563069
  50. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-01923-011
  51. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26247866/
  52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278584619307729
  53. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56361970
  54. http://aihumanities.org/en/journal/past-issues/?vid=97
  55. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/
  56. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/plato-and-the-divided-self/enkrateia-and-the-partition-of-the-soul-in-the-gorgias/BDBF11D2AE52CAA4EDDE01E4352245AF
  57. https://www.academia.edu/7511502/Can_Self_Deception_explain_Akrasia_in_Kant_s_Theory_of_Moral_Agency_SWPR_15_1_1998_87_97_
  58. https://philpapers.org/rec/MELAOA
  59. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.13197
  60. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/13/9/190
  61. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-025-00990-6
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.