A Critique of Carl Ginet's Intrinsic Theory of Volition
Behavior and Philosophy 29:101 - 120 (2001)
| Abstract | This essay presents an analysis in the area of the theory of human action. Philosophers and pschologists are interested in theories of action because action defines those behaviors that are under our control as opposed to behaviors that in some sense just happen. In its wider context, a theory of action has implications for legal reasoning or moral reasoning. Throughout the history of this topic, one of the leading theories of action has been the volitional theory. Volition, in its simplest sense, refers to an act of will. In this essay, I evaluate the work of Carl Ginet, who is one of the leading modern advocates of the Volitional theory of action. I argue below that Ginet's sophisticated volitional theory of action suffers from certain internal problems that result from Ginet's project of removing causal relations from his account of action. Ultimately, I argue that when he does this, Ginet reduces the theoretical resources for explaning how volition is connected to both overt behavior and to the agent. Furthermore, I belive that elucidating such problems is valuable just because this process reveals why we should focus our efforts upon a leading alternative to the volitional theory, namely the belief/desire theory of action. In the way, my analysis of Ginet reveals the strengths of an externalist rather than an internalist approach to the problem of action. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesCarl Ginet (1990). On Action. Cambridge University Press.
Randolph Clarke (2010). Because She Wanted To. Journal of Ethics 14 (1):27--35.
Andrew Naylor (2012). Belief From the Past. European Journal of Philosophy 20 (4):598-620.
Sara Rachel Chant (2007). Unintentional Collective Action. Philosophical Explorations 10 (3):245 – 256.
Carl Ginet (1986). Voluntary Exertion of the Body: A Volitional Account. Theory and Decision 20 (3):223-45.
Joshua Stuchlik (forthcoming). From Volitionalism to the Dual Aspect Theory of Action. Philosophia:1-20.
David-Hillel Ruben (2008). Disjunctive Theories of Perception and Action. In Adrian Haddock & Fiona Macpherson (eds.), Disjunctivism: Perception, Action, Knowledge. Oxford University Press.
Carl Ginet (2002). Reasons Explanations of Action: Causalist Versus Noncausalist Accounts. In Robert H. Kane (ed.), The Oxford Handbook on Free Will. Oxford University Press.
Carl Ginet (2007). An Action Can Be Both Uncaused and Up to the Agent. In Lumer (ed.), Intentionality, Deliberation, and Autonomy. Ashgate.
Alfred R. Mele (ed.) (1997). The Philosophy of Action. Oxford University Press.
Vere Chappell (1994). Locke on the Freedom of the Will. In G. A. J. Rogers (ed.), Locke's Philosophy: Content and Context. Oxford University Press.
Carl Ginet (1989). Reasons Explanation of Action: An Incompatibilist Account. Philosophical Perspectives 3:17-46.
Alfred Mele (1992). On Action, by Carl Ginet. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52 (2):488-491.
Carl Ginet (1988). Book Review. An Essay on Human Action. Michael Zimmerman. [REVIEW] Philosophical Review 97 (1):114-118.
Ferenc Huoranszki (2002). Common Sense and the Theory of Human Behaviour. Philosophical Quarterly 52 (209):526-543.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-05-29Total downloads4 ( #178,800 of 549,198 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,198 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
