David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (5):603-614 (2012)
In this paper, I show that we should understand the direction of fit of beliefs and desires in normative terms. After rehearsing a standard objection to Michael Smith’s analysis of direction of fit, I raise a similar problem for Lloyd Humberstone’s analysis. I go on to offer my own account, according to which the difference between beliefs and desires is determined by the normative relations such states stand in. I argue that beliefs are states which we have reason to change in light of the world, whereas desires are states that give us reason to change the world. After doing this, I show how the view avoids various objections, including two from David Sobel and David Copp. The paper ends by briefly discussing the relevance of the view to the Humean theory of motivation.
|Keywords||Direction of fit Belief Desire Humean theory of motivation Reasons Normativity of mind|
|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 Smith (1994). The Moral Problem. Blackwell.
Robert Brandom (2000). Articulating Reasons: An Introduction to Inferentialism. Harvard University Press.
Niko Kolodny (2005). Why Be Rational? Mind 114 (455):509-563.
Nishi Shah (2003). How Truth Governs Belief. Philosophical Review 112 (4):447-482.
Ralph Wedgwood (2002). The Aim of Belief. Philosophical Perspectives 36 (s16):267-97.
Citations of this work BETA
Avery Archer (2015). Reconceiving Direction of Fit. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 4 (3):171-180.
Similar books and articles
Chris Meyers (2005). Wants and Desires: A Critique of Conativist Theory of Motivation. Journal of Philosophical Research 30:357-370.
David Sobel & David Copp (2001). Against Direction of Fit Accounts of Belief and Desire. Analysis 61 (1):44-53.
Hilla Jacobson-Horowitz (2006). Motivational Cognitivism and the Argument From Direction of Fit. Philosophical Studies 127 (3):561 - 580.
Greg Sherkoske (2010). Direction of Fit Accounts of Belief and Desire Revisited. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 10 (1):1-11.
John Milliken (2008). In a Fitter Direction: Moving Beyond the Direction of Fit Picture of Belief and Desire. [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11 (5):563 - 571.
Sergio Tenenbaum (2006). Direction of Fit and Motivational Cognitivism. In Russ Shafer-Landau (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics. Oxford University Press 235-64.
Nicholas Shea (2013). Perception Versus Action: The Computations May Be the Same but the Direction of Fit Differs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (3):228-229.
Michael Ridge (2006). Saving the Ethical Appearances. Mind 115 (459):633-650.
Philip Pettit, Desire. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Charles B. Cross (2002). Armstrong and the Problem of Converse Relations. Erkenntnis 56 (2):215 - 227.
I. L. Humberstone (1992). Direction of Fit. Mind 101 (401):59-83.
G. F. Schueler (1991). Pro-Attitudes and Direction of Fit. Mind 100 (400):277-81.
Lamar Pierce & Jason Snyder, Ethical Fit, Diversity, and Attrition: Evidence From the Vehicle Emissions Testing Market.
Jeffrey Hershfield (2009). The Ethics of Sexual Fantasy. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (1):27-49.
Added to index2012-03-29
Total downloads65 ( #68,130 of 1,911,817 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #61,898 of 1,911,817 )
How can I increase my downloads?