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)
I suppose then my issue is that I find the problem/paradox trivial to solve, because if you just write out an actual logical flow chart, there's no individual step that runs in to problems. It's clever word play, but there isn't any actual substance behind it.
It's not actually a paradox, because the refund is guaranteed in advance (either you'll do something akratic because everyone does, or he'll use the paradox logic to weasel out of paying). Regardless of which branch you're on, the actual value of the payout is now effectively 0 - if you know you'll get it inevtiably then getting it now is a trivially small improvement, and if you'll never get it, then... you'll never get it. So no paradox emerges, and the action remains akratic.
Put another way: At best, you've simply regained your money, and thus gained +$0.00. Your own failure to be akratic would, itself, be akratic... and... okay... that reasoning produces a completely different and actually viable paradox, but it still simplifies out to "you'd have to be stupid to take this offer" :)
I don't think you've understood the article: if you have $1000 with Sorensen, you cant' do anything akratic. It's impossible. Which isn't to say your behavior changes at all, it just can't be called akratic anymore.