Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Anscombe's account in 'Intention' grounds action in the agent's knowledge under a description, not in the causal history of the behavior's production.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Grounding action in descriptions alone risks making intention too mentalistic, untethered from the actual world and causal processes that realize it.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Distinguishing intentional from unintentional action requires some reference to how the behavior was actually produced, not just how it's described.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
An agent's description of their action can be false or self-deceived; causal facts about behavior provide objective constraints on valid descriptions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Intentions are essentially characterized by how agents conceive their actions, not mechanical causation, making descriptions constitutive of intention.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A causal history account struggles to distinguish intentional action from mere bodily movement or unintended side effects of deliberate acts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Anscombe's framework explains why an agent can know their action without empirical observation, through practical knowledge of their own intention.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42