Philosophical Studies 176 (4):1097-1118 (2019)

Authors
Hein Duijf
VU University Amsterdam
Abstract
Many philosophers are convinced that rationality dictates that one’s overall set of intentions be consistent. The starting point and inspiration for our study is Bratman’s planning theory of intentions. According to this theory, one needs to appeal to the fulfilment of characteristic planning roles to justify norms that apply to our intentions. Our main objective is to demonstrate that one can be rational despite having mutually inconsistent intentions. Conversely, it is also shown that one can be irrational despite having a consistent overall set of intentions. To overcome this paradox, we argue that it is essential for a successful planning system that one’s intentions are practically consistent rather than being consistent or applying an aggregation procedure. Our arguments suggest that a new type of norm is needed: whereas the consistency requirement focuses on rendering the contents of one’s intentions consistent, our new practical consistency requirement demands that one’s intentions be able to simultaneously and unconditionally guide one’s action. We observe that for intentions that conform to the ‘own-action condition’, the practical consistency requirement is equivalent to the traditional consistency requirement. This implies that the consistency requirement only needs to be amended in scenarios of choice under uncertainty.
Keywords Intention  Consistency requirements  Norms of rationality  Bratman
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11098-018-1049-z
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 62,513
External links

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

Modal Logic: An Introduction.Brian F. Chellas - 1980 - Cambridge University Press.
Universal Grammar.Richard Montague - 1970 - Theoria 36 (3):373--398.
Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason.J. David Velleman - 1991 - Philosophical Review 100 (2):277-284.

View all 29 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Pro-Tempore Disjunctive Intentions.Luca Ferrero - 2016 - In Roman Altshuler & MIchael J. Sigrist (eds.), Time and The Philosophy of Action. Routledge. pp. 108-123.
Rethinking the Videogame Case: Trying and Intending.Jiajun Hu - 2017 - Philosophical Explorations 20 (3):338-351.
Do We Need Partial Intentions?Avery Archer - 2017 - Philosophia 45 (3):995-1005.
Against Cognitivism About Practical Rationality.John Brunero - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 146 (3):311-325.
Conditional Intentions.Luca Ferrero - 2009 - Noûs 43 (4):700 - 741.
The Content of Intentions.Elisabeth Patherie - 2000 - Mind and Language 15 (4):400-432.
On the Principle of Intention Agglomeration.Jing Zhu - 2010 - Synthese 175 (1):89 - 99.
Proximal Intentions, Intention-Reports, and Vetoing.Alfred Mele - 2008 - Philosophical Psychology 21 (1):1 – 14.
Intention Inertia and the Plasticity of Planning.Piotr Makowski - 2016 - Philosophical Psychology 29 (7):1045-1056.
Intentions and Potential Intentions Revisited.Xiaocong Fan & John Yen - 2012 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 22 (3):203-230.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-02-20

Total views
36 ( #298,624 of 2,446,485 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #231,676 of 2,446,485 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes