Abstract
This paper discusses practical akrasia from the perspective of the sophisticated form of moral subjectivism that can be derived from Nuno Venturinha’s (2018) remarks on moral matters.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Note that this requirement is weaker than a knowledge norm for belief like Williamson’s (2000), according to which one may believe to p only if she knows it.
It is interesting to note that cases of epistemic akrasia seem much more difficult to find (Hurley 1993; Pettit and Smith 1996; Adler 2002; Owens 2002; Raz 2011). My suggestion is that this is so because epistemic reasons for (full) belief do not conflict with each other, unlike practical reasons: if a subject concludes that she has decisive reasons to fully believe that p, then she cannot rationally recognize the existence of (weighty) contrary reasons to disbelieve it. See González de Prado (2019).
For the sake of simplicity, let us stipulate that there is no alternative available action the subject desires to approve of.
This work has been supported by the Spanish Government research project FFI2017–89639-P and the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology project PTDC/MHC-FIL/0521/2014 (“Values in Argumentative Discourse”). Thanks to Nuno Venturinha and to the participants in a symposium on his book Description of Situations at NOVA University of Lisbon.
References
Adler, J. (2002). Akratic believing? Philosophical Studies, 110(1), 1–27.
Alvarez, M. (2018). Reasons for action, acting for reasons, and rationality. Synthese, 195(8), 3293–3310.
Ayer, A. J. (1936/1971). Language, truth and logic. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Blackburn, S. (1984). Spreading the word. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Blackburn, S. (1993). Essays in quasi-realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dancy, J. (2004). Ethics without principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
González de Prado, J. (2019). No reasons to believe the false. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 100(3), 703–722.
Gibbard, A. (1990). Wise choices, apt feelings: A theory of normative judgment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
González de Prado, J. (2018). Rationality, appearances, and apparent facts. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 14(2), 83–111.
Harman, G. (1975). Moral relativism defended. Philosophical Review, 84, 3–22.
Hurley, S. (1993). Natural reasons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, D. (1989). Dispositional theories of value. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 63(1), 113–137.
McDowell, J. (1998). Mind, value, and reality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Mele, A. R. (1992). Akrasia, self-control, and second-order desires. Noûs, 26(3), 281–302.
Owens, D. (2002). Epistemic akrasia. The Monist, 85(3), 381–397.
Parfit, D. (2011). On what matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pérez Carballo, A. (2018). Rationality & second-order preferences. Noûs, 52(1), 196–215.
Pettit, P., & Smith, M. (1996). Freedom in belief and desire. The Journal of Philosophy, 93(9), 429–449.
Raz, J. (2011). From normativity to responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scanlon, T. (1998). What we owe to each other. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Schroeder, M. (2007). Slaves of the passions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stevenson, C. L. (1944). Ethics and language. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Street, S. (2010). What is constructivism in ethics and metaethics? Philosophy Compass, 5, 363–384.
Venturinha, N. (2018). Description of situations: An essay in contextualist epistemology. Cham: Springer.
Way, J. (2009). Two accounts of the normativity of rationality. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 4, 1–8.
Wedgwood, R. (1997). The essence of response-dependence. European Review of Philosophy, 3, 31–54.
Wiggins, D. (1987). Needs, values and truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
González de Prado, J. Akrasia and the Desire to Become Someone Else: Venturinha on Moral Matters. Philosophia 48, 1705–1711 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-019-00140-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-019-00140-1