David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Explorations 12 (3):297-317 (2011)
“S ought (not) to see to it that p at t” is true iff an intention on the part of S to see to it that p at t is (in) correct. From this truth condition follows an understanding of the conceptual role of ought-claims in practical inference: ought-claims are interchangeable with intentions having the same content. From this conceptual role, it is quite clear why first-person, present-tense ought-judgments, and just those, motivate: failure to be motivated is a failure of rationality. The point and purpose of 'ought' is mainly to express the results of practical reasoning performed on premises held hypothetically, an exercise of which there are many varieties. Our capacity for normative thought and language is a consequence of, and intimately related to, our capacity for practical thought.
|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
Allan Gibbard (2003). Thinking How to Live. Harvard University Press.
Simon Blackburn (1998/2000). Ruling Passions. Oxford University Press.
David K. Lewis (1973). Counterfactuals. Blackwell Publishers.
Allan Gibbard (1990). Wise Choices, Apt Feelings: A Theory of Normative Judgment. Harvard University Press.
Robert B. Brandom (1994). Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Harvard University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Maria Alvarez (2010). Reasons for Action and Practical Reasoning. Ratio 23 (4):355-373.
Alfred R. Mele (1987). Are Intentions Self-Referential? Philosophical Studies 52 (3):309-329.
Barbara Herman (2006). Reasoning to Obligation. Inquiry 49 (1):44 – 61.
Stephen Andrew Butterfill & Corrado Sinigaglia (2014). Intention and Motor Representation in Purposive Action. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 88 (1):119-145.
John Broome (2001). Normative Practical Reasoning: John Broome. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75 (1):175–193.
Raimo Tuomela (2005). We-Intentions Revisited. Philosophical Studies 125 (3):327 - 369.
Christian Piller (2001). Normative Practical Reasoning. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75 (1):175 - 216.
John McDowell (2010). What is the Content of an Intention in Action? Ratio 23 (4):415-432.
Tim Thornton (1997). Intention, Rule Following and the Strategic Role of Wright's Order of Determination Test. Philosophical Investigations 20 (2):136–151.
Added to index2010-07-27
Total downloads19 ( #147,771 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #289,836 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?