Abstract

According to Michael Smith, in his book The Moral Problem, the following internalist claim is true: ‘‘If an agent judges it right to do something in certain circumstances, then the agent is either motivated to do that thing in the circumstances or is practically irrational.’’ He calls this claim the ‘‘practicality requirement on moral judgment,’’ and in his book tries to defend it against the amoralist challenge presented by David Brink. Brink famously argues against internalism on the grounds that it ‘‘makes the amoralist conceptually impossible.’’ Amoralists are people who genuinely make moral judgments, remain unmoved with respect to their motivation, and yet do not suffer the relevant kinds of practical irrationality. They may judge, say, that it is right to donate one's old clothes to the Red Cross, but they not only fail to do so when the time comes, they are not motivated at all to do so when the time comes. Defenders of the practicality requirement, in contrast, claim that it is a ‘‘conceptual truth’’ that ‘‘agents who make moral judgments are motivated accordingly, at least absent weakness of will and the like.’’ Brink thinks amoralists are possible, and that since internalists deny the possibility, we should reject internalism in favor of externalism, which makes the moral motivation of judgers a matter of a contingent fact about them. Smith's argument in The Moral Problem in defending the practicality requirement, then, is in essence to show that ‘‘it is impossible for there to be any amoralists.’’ In the argument to be considered here, he argues that externalists cannot offer an acceptable explanation for why the moral motivation of good people reliably follow their moral judgments. But we will see that Smith's defense of the practicality requirement loses its appeal once we see that it turns on an ambiguity in his use of the expression ‘‘good people.’’ Furthermore, easy examples show that, contrary what Smith says, people whose motivations reliably follow their moral judgments sometimes care only derivatively about that which they judge. Smith's later presentations of his argument also fail, for externalists need not offer a single explanation of the moral motivation of all whose motivation reliably follow their moral judgments