Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Actual desires are not necessary for such counterfactual ... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Williams' argument for internalism about reasons is stronger than the Classical Argument for internalism

    Actual desires are not necessary for such counterfactual motivation explanations

    Free Will & ForeknowledgeMoral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityFree Will & Foreknowledge

    Connections

    4 topics

    No other argument is better1 linked

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Moral Responsibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Truth & Knowledge
    1 linked
    Consciousness & Mind1 linked
    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Dispositions are sufficient to explain why an agent would be motivated under cou...The Classical Argument depends on the Humean Theory of Motivation (HTM), which c...Williams' argument for internalism about reasons is stronger than the Classical ...Williams' argument grounds reasons in dispositions to be motivated, not actual d...
    +1 moreShow less
    Williams' argument is independent of HTM

    Similar

    An explanation of why some desires fail to generate reasons may reveal...85%The relation between desire/motivation and reasons is not consistent, ...84%These desires seem not to generate genuine practical reasons83%Belief and desire are each necessary but insufficient individually for...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: reasons-internal-external
    View source passageHide passage
    Although Williams’ article is commonly seen as the classic defense of HTR, on this reading it only restricts agents’ reasons to their dispositions to be motivated, and not more narrowly to their actual desires. This is because dispositions are sufficient, and actual desires not necessary, in order to explain why somebody would be motivated under counterfactual conditions. This argument is therefore stronger than the Classical Argument because of its independence from HTM, which controversially c

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective