Abstract
AbstractOrthodoxy holds that the difference between weakness of will and compulsion is a matter of the resistibility of an agent's effective motivation, which makes control-based views of agency especially well equipped to distinguish blameworthy weak-willed acts from non-blameworthy compulsive acts. I defend an alternative view that the difference between weakness and compulsion instead lies in the fact that agents would upon reflection give some conative weight to acting on their weak-willed desires for some aim other than to extinguish them, but not to their compulsive desires. This view allows identificationist theorists of moral responsibility to explain why weak-willed actions, but not compulsive actions, are attributable to agents such that they can, in theory, be praised or blamed for them. After motivating and presenting the view in detail, I show how it has unique resources for explaining the ethics of managing one's compulsions.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Cited by
16 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Corporate Weakness of Will;Journal of Business Ethics;2024-08-27
2. Describing Weakness of Will;Weakness of Will and Delay Discounting;2023-08-17
3. Discounting;Weakness of Will and Delay Discounting;2023-08-17
4. Agency in Descriptive Research;Weakness of Will and Delay Discounting;2023-08-17
5. Philosophical Accounts;Weakness of Will and Delay Discounting;2023-08-17