PROVO, Utah (March 20, 2014)—The question of moral weakness, or akrasia, has been debated since Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle, and continues today. BYU Philosophy professor Darin Gates explained akrasia, central features of the debate, and why it remains an interesting philosophical issue during the weekly Philosophy Lecture Series.
“Akrasia,” said Gates, “literally means not being in command or control. It is often translated as moral weakness, or in some translations, weakness of the will.” Explaining the history of the debate, Gates said that some early philosophers disagreed on what akrasia really meant and whether it was possible.
“Most people think someone can know what is best and still not do it, so most people believe in moral weakness,” Gates said. “But Socrates did not believe this.”
According to Socrates, “no one freely chooses to do what is bad, knowing it is bad,” Gates said. “Socrates concludes that we never act against what we believe.”
Gates explained that for Socrates, “the power of appearances, influenced by strong appetite or passion, can lead us to believe that pleasure is good. So, we must be careful that we make correct judgments and not allow our passions an undue influence on our beliefs.”
Also, for Socrates, wrongdoing is the result of wrong beliefs or ignorance.
Gates then contrasted Socrates’ position with Aristotle’s. Aristotle agreed with many of Socrates’ claims, but argued that people can knowingly do wrong, and that akrasia occurs.
Gates said that for Aristotle, “a particular knowledge becomes inoperative, being dragged from actively known to passively known.”
Gates gave the example of a person eating a candy bar. Even if the person knows it to be unhealthy, “The akratic’s appetite causes him to cease attending to the fact that the candy bar is unhealthy. In other word, a person’s knowledge is blocked from coming into consciousness under a moment of moral weakness.
“Aristotle also says that a person can act contrary to what is best, because the morally weak person is not actively attending to what he or she believes in the very moment,” Gates said.
Gates explained: “For Socrates, knowledge is both necessary and sufficient for virtue, but for Aristotle, knowledge is necessary but not sufficient, and we have to train our non-rational desires to listen to reason.”
While modern philosophers are still debating akrasia, “Both Socrates and Aristotle agree that we are responsible for ignorance in akratic moments.”
This lecture was part of the Philosophy Lecture Series. For more information, visit http://philosophy.byu.edu/.
—Stephanie Bahr Bentley BA’ English ’14