Trevor Blake: Akrasia at the Grocery Store
The Guardian quotes the Wall Street Journal quoting the founder of the Whole Foods chain of grocery stores:
“Basically, we used to think it was enough just to sell healthy food, but we know it is not enough. We sell all kinds of candy. We sell a bunch of junk.” [John Mackey] said the store would now attempt to educate in the ways of healthy eating: “There will be someone in a kiosk to answer questions, they’ll have cookbooks and health books, there will be some cooking classes. It will be about how to select food, because people don’t know.”
Mr. Mackey is claiming that people would eat healthy if they knew how to, or knew the benefits of doing so. He is bringing in books and teachers to combat akrasia, or acting against one’s own best interests (in this case by eating a bunch of junk). But will he succeed? We know more about nutrition than we used to, but it is likely that there is much to learn. Even acting on the best knowledge available at present might be going against our best interests in light of future discoveries. We may eat as healthily as possible and still fall sick, or be killed in an accident that eating well could not have prevented. This is not an argument against attempting to act in one’s best interests but it is a warning that we may not always succeed.
There are a number of explanations for akrasia. Each has its limitations. In stating “No one goes willingly toward the bad,” Socrates claimed that akrasia simply does not exist. If you can think of a single instance in your life when you’ve willingly gone toward the bad, you’ve demonstrated that Socrates was mistaken. The ethical school called enlightened self-interest claims we always act in our own self-interest even when we appear to or intend to do otherwise. But if we always and only act in our self-interests, we have to ask what other sort of interests there might be – thus enlightened self-interest doesn’t really explain anything. Akrasia is explained as being weak willed when we judge it harshly and deferment to a greater good when we judge it favorably. Stated in this way, our interests are more like our preferences. If there is a conflict of interests we may engage in akrasia, such as when it is equally in a person’s best interests to stay in the city they love and to move to another city for a good-paying job. Where we cannot determine which conflicting self-interest is lesser, there is no way to identify akrasia. An explanation for akrasia found especially among the politically left is that people act against their self-interests through lack of knowledge only, and that being exposed to knowledge will spontaneously and always result in self-interest choices. Mr. Mackey of Whole Foods is banking on exposure to information as the key to lessening akrasia. But every day experience shows that people will believe what they want in spite of the information they are exposed to. Knowledge is not hidden in objects and experiences like a gift in a box, waiting for us to unwrap it. And exposure to information does not equal acceptance or agreement or action. Perhaps by having books and teachers on-hand Mr. Mackey hopes to be ‘forgiven’ for selling a bunch of junk. Me, I like books and teachers and junk.
I claim the political left tends to use the lack of knowledge explanation for akrasia for two reasons. First, at present the left is where intellectuals are valued, and this is an intellectual sort of explanation. Intellectuals consider options and make nuanced choices. Intellectuals also forget considering options and making nuanced choices is not always in one’s self interest – for future reference, go ahead and fight an attacker to the death, don’t debate them. Second, the political left is deeply invested in the claim that there is an equality and sameness found in all people. The political left thinks that being an intellectual will come to people and be their preference if they are exposed to the idea of being an intellectual, and that having become an intellectual they will consider options and make nuanced choices. Part of why I’ve found less to agree with in the political left is my claim that there are a great deal of people (some of them quite smart) who are not intellectuals and who don’t value or prefer intellectual perspectives; there are a great many people who are not capable of being intellectuals even if they might value or prefer to be; and there are a great many people who use violence to get what they want and not the intellect. Bluntly stated, I claim that akrasia exists in part because some people at some times are stupid and evil. Fortunately for most people, my claims are next to ineffectual in the world. I make no public policy, I control no one and influence very few, and eventually I won’t be around at all. If I’m wrong, just be patient and I’ll go away.
Why do you think akrasia exists? What do others think? What is to be done?
