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 The fact that reasons must cause actions in order to explain them does not entail that reasons cause physical behavior.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The 'because' argument holds that reasons must cause actions in order to explain those actions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Davidson rejects the possibility of analyzing action solely in terms of behavior caused in a particular way by reasons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Actions are not straightforwardly identical to physical behavior.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Actions are individuated under intentional descriptions, while physical behavior is individuated under physical descriptions, making them distinct explananda.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Davidson's own token identity thesis entails that the same event can be redescribed, so reasons explaining actions under mental descriptions need not cause behavior under physical descriptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Explanation is description-relative: what reasons explain is the action qua intentional event, not the bodily movement qua physical occurrence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Anscombe's account in 'Intention' establishes that rational explanation terminates in the agent's reasons, not in neurophysiological causes of muscular contractions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the causal sufficiency of physical antecedents already explains bodily movement, then reasons are explanatorily redundant with respect to behavior but not with respect to action under intentional description.
      ?

      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.