David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Quarterly 52 (206):88-95 (2002)
Over-simple internalist accounts of practical reasons imply that we cannot have reasons to become more rational, because they claim that we have a reason to φ only if we would have some desire to φ if we were fully rational. But if we were fully rational, we would have no desire to become more rational. Robert Johnson has recently argued that in their attempts to avoid this problem, existing versions of internalism yield reasons which do not have an appropriate connection with potential explanations of action. I suggest that the problem is partly a result of failure to see that action-tokens are usually tokens of a wide variety of action-types, and that the internalist conditional need only be true of one of these types in order to justify a reason claim about the token
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Michael S. Brady (2000). How to Understand Internalism. Philosophical Quarterly 50 (198):91-97.
Joshua Gert (2001). Skepticism About Practical Reasons Internalism. Southern Journal of Philosophy 39 (1):59-77.
Robert N. Johnson (1999). Internal Reasons and the Conditional Fallacy. Philosophical Quarterly 50 (194):53-71.
Thomas Nagel (1988). Autonomy and Deontology. In Samuel Scheffler (ed.), Consequentialism and its Critics. Oxford University Press.
Robert K. Shope (1978). The Conditional Fallacy in Contemporary Philosophy. Journal of Philosophy 75 (8):397-413.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Richard Bradley (1999). Conditional Desirability. Theory and Decision 47 (1):23-55.
Patrick Fleming (forthcoming). The Indeterminacy of Desire and Practical Reason. In David K. Chan (ed.), Moral Psychology Today: Essays on Values, Rational Choice, and the Will. Springer: Philosophical Studies Series.
Paul K. Moser (1990). Reasons, Values, and Rational Actions. Journal of Philosophical Research 15:127-151.
Robert N. Johnson (2003). Internal Reasons: Reply to Brady, Van Roojen and Gert. Philosophical Quarterly 53 (213):573–580.
Melissa Barry (2007). Realism, Rational Action, and the Humean Theory of Motivation. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10 (3):231-242.
Amy Peikoff (2003). Rational Action Entails Rational Desire: A Critical Review of Searle's Rationality in Action. Philosophical Explorations 6 (2):124 – 138.
Patrick Girard & Luca Moretti (2014). Antirealism and the Conditional Fallacy: The Semantic Approach. Journal of Philosophical Logic 43 (4):761-783.
Ruth Chang (2001). Two Conceptions of Reasons for Action. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62 (2):447–453.
Teresa Robertson (2003). Internalism, (Super)Fragile Reasons, and the Conditional Fallacy. Philosophical Papers 32 (2):171-184.
Mark van Roojen (2000). Motivational Internalism: A Somewhat Less Idealized Account. Philosophical Quarterly 50 (199):233-241.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads24 ( #73,287 of 1,102,738 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #29,556 of 1,102,738 )
How can I increase my downloads?