The varying rationality of weakness of the will: an empirical investigation and its challenges for a unified theory of rationality

Abstract

Weakness of the will remains a perplexing issue. Though philosophers have made substantial progress in homing in on what counts as a weak will, there is little agreement on whether weakness of the will is irrational, and if so, why. In this paper, we take an empirical approach towards the rationality of weakness of the will. After introducing the philosophical debate, we present the results of an empirical study that reveals that people take a “dual sensitivity”, as we shall put it, towards assessing the rationality of weak-willed behavior. Put succinctly, intending X against your value judgements is assessed irrational; yet, in the same situation, intending X is assessed significantly less irrational if you judge X as something you ought to do. After discussing this result, we turn to the question of whether there is a plausible theory of rationality than can account for the dual sensitivity of the rationality assessments. We show that a success-based account can make sense of the dual sensitivity our empirical results reveal.

What are the standards of practical rationality for laypeople? An experimental inquiry

“…Although experimental philosophy has addressed several concepts that are of the utmost importance for philosophical inquiry, for example, knowledge (see Beebee 2012 for a review), responsibility (see Nadelhoffer & Monroe 2022 for a recent collection), and intentional action (see Cova forthcoming for a recent overview), the folk concept of practical rationality has not received much attention so far. The most prominent exceptions are works by Grossman et al (2020), Messerli & Reuter (2024), and Reuter et al (ms.) who do not address our research question though. Grossman et al (2020) compare judgments about rationality and reasonableness, thereby using decision and game theory as well as personality traits from psychology as a theoretical foil.…”

“…Grossman et al (2020) compare judgments about rationality and reasonableness, thereby using decision and game theory as well as personality traits from psychology as a theoretical foil. Messerli & Reuter (2024) compare coherencebased vs. reason-based theories of rationality, while Reuter et al (ms.) address the question of whether the concept of rationality is normative. There is additional empirical work on the notion of reasonableness, in particular in the context of law (see Tobia 2018 andKneer 2022).…”