I concede that, but I thought people would enjoy this and open thread stuff typically gets buried in 15 minutes or so.
Anyway, here's what there is to think about: 1) Sorensen's solution is paradoxical: if you get an overwhelming (utility wise) amount of money for being akratic, you can't be akratic. So long as you have $1000 (or however much) in Sorensen's fund, it's impossible to commit an (actually as opposed to contrafactually) akratic action.
2) Sorensen probably didn't get any money in the mail, because his solution is obviously silly. But why? It's not hard to tweak the scenario beyond practice but within reason to counter objections about long-tem utility. How do we explain the silliness of this solution?
3) Another (also funny) article in response to this counters that Sorensen's solution isn't silly at all, but rather one that we regularly practice: when we encounter ourselves behaving akratically, we often tell ourselves stories about how we're not distractible, but spontaneous, not mean, but honest, not lazy, but contemplative. We just reevaluate the akratic behavior so that it seems to have a higher utility, and so choosing it is not akratic. Is this true? And if so, is this practice irrational? It obviously seems so, but its irrationality is as hard to explain as the irrationality of Sorensen's solution.
open thread stuff typically gets buried in 15 minutes or so.
Yes. And one of the reasons why open threads get buried so fast is that people post open-thread level things as separate articles.
Thus, the purpose of my downvote is to make it easier for people to cooperate in this Prisonner's Dilemma.
Some of you guys have been a little down on philosophy articles lately. This article by Roy Sorensen appeared in Mind in 1997, and it is awesome, therefore all philosophy papers are awesome.
Published in Mind 106/424 (October 1997) 743
A CURE FOR INCONTINENCE!
Tired of being weak-willed? Do you want to end procrastination and back-sliding? Are you envious of those paragons of self-control who always do what they consider best?
Thanks to a breakthrough in therapeutic philosophy, you too can now close the gap between what you think you ought to do and what you actually do. Just send $1000 to the address below and you will never again succumb to temptation. This is a MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE. The first time you do something that you know to be irrational, your money will be refunded, no questions asked. Of course, you might nevertheless have some questions. How can you act incontinently when you know that the "irrational" act will earn you a $1000 refund? Well, that's what's revolutionary in this new cure for incontinence.
Old approaches focus on punishing the weak willed. This follows the antiquated behaviorist principle that negative reinforcement extinguishes bad behavior. The new humanitarian approach rewards incontinence -- and lavishly at that. The key is to make the reward so strongly motivating that an otherwise irrational act becomes rational.
Some may seek a refund on the grounds that the reward for incontinence played no role in their (apparently) incontinent act; although aware of the reward, they would have performed the act anyway. These folks should distinguish between actual and hypothetical incontinence. If you act in accordance with your judgement as to what is best overall, then you did nothing irrational.
True, the hypothetical incontinent act is a sign that you have a weak will. But the presence of this disposition gives you all the more reason to block its manifestation -- by sending $1000. Granted, there are people who cannot be swayed from temptation by a mere $1000. These recalcitrant individuals are advised to send in more than $1000. Give until it hurts.
Rush your cheque to:
Dr. Roy Sorensen
Department of Philosophy
New York University
503 Main Building
100 Washington Square East
New York, New York 10003-6688
(Note, address is not current)