In the opening chapter of What We Owe To Each Other , Tim Scanlon produces a sustained critique of a Humean conception of practical reason. Scanlon claims he will argue that unless having a desire just is to see something as a reason, desires play (almost) no role in the explanation or justification of action. Yet his specific arguments against Humeanism all employ a very austere understanding of desire (which he calls the “standard model”), and attempt to show that desires so understood are not up to any explanatory or justificatory task. Since the standard model represents only one understanding of desire (distinct from the “recognition of reasons”) his specific arguments cannot establish his stated general thesis. I show how a more robust conception of desire will leave the Humean account safe from Scanlon's specific arguments.
CITATION STYLE
ARKONOVICH, S. (2001). Defending Desire: Scanlon’s Anti‐Humeanism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(3), 499–519. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00122.x
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.