In this paper, I argue that Alfred Mele's account of weakness of will (externalism) is more philosophically defensible than R. M. Hare's account (internalism). I explain why the phenomenon of weakness of will is philosophically troubling, then go on to spell out Hare and Mele's respective views. I entertain Austin's psychological objection to Hare, as well as the objection that Hare ultimately overreaches. I argue that Hare might respond to the first but not the second of these objections. I consider the free will objection to Mele's schema, in addition to Bratman's objection that such a schema is counter-intuitive. I maintain that Mele can respond adequately to each of these objections.
Knepley, Craig B.
"For What I Hate, I Do: An Investigation of Weakness of Will,"
Vol. 7, Article 3.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/globaltides/vol7/iss1/3