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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Bratman's account of shared intention is defective because intentions of the form 'I intend that we X' violate the condition that one can only control one's own actions.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Bratman treats intentions of the form 'I intend that we X' as basic to the intentionality of joint action.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.One can only control one's own actions, not those of other agents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bratman's own planning theory requires that intentions be action-guiding only over what falls within the agent's direct volitional control.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Anscombe's account of intentional action in 'Intention' ties the scope of intention strictly to what the agent herself does, not what others do.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An intention whose success conditions essentially include another agent's voluntary action conflates intending with hoping or willing an outcome.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frankfurt's hierarchical account of agency entails that genuine intention requires the capacity to endorse and execute the relevant action through one's own will.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.No agent can form a genuinely action-guiding plan over behavior that depends irreducibly on a separate agent's autonomous choice, as Michael Bratman himself acknowledges in his conditions for mesh subplans.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If 'I intend that we X' is basic, it generates a regress: each participant's intention requires the other's cooperation, which itself requires prior cooperative intention, with no non-circular grounding.
      ?

      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.