Callard's Dichotomy: The Weakness Of Will

The weakness of will is defined as a lack of self-control or the state of acting against one's better judgment. Philosophers have debated for years about the philosophical puzzle surrounding the concept of the weakness of will. At the heart of the philosophical puzzle is the dichotomy between acknowledging the best course of action to take, yet deciding to complete an action rated below this initial plan. The lack of consistency between these two actions is the behavior that has puzzled philosophers.

I will accept Callard’s “no weaker will” argument as the most convincing philosophical response because it highlights the importance of the perceived “weaker decision” actually overpowering the “better decision”. However, I acknowledge that Callard’s argument falls short in saying that a rational agent would purposely favor irrational acts to avoid the outcome they desire. I will strengthen Callard’s argument with my own argument. Making a different decision from the “better reason” robs you of the opportunity of obtaining the intended benefit, but may still yield a more important benefit in the end.
The “weaker decision” is actually the preferred course of action in the moment that it is chosen. Even in something as benign as watching late night television when nothing entertaining is on. The agent continues to watch TV anyways and we wonder why this agent acts without a better reason to continue doing so. Even if there is no obvious conscious reason, there could very easily be an unconscious one; Watching television that doesn’t require thinking maybe be a way for the agent to unwind, relax, and lower their stress level. There is certainly a good argument for rational agents choosing the actions that are the best for them in the moment, whether consciously or unconsciously. (Callard