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
    The Simple View must be rejected in order to avoid attrib... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The Simple View must be rejected in order to avoid attributing irrational intentions to a rational agent in Bratman's bifurcated-strategy cases.

    Free Will & ForeknowledgeMoral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Accepting the Simple View entails that an agent pursuing a bifurcated strategy intends to φ and also intends to Θ.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is irrational to hold both of those intentions while believing it is impossible to φ and Θ together.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The agent in Bratman's case is stipulated to be wholly rational.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.An agent can rationally intend each of two outcomes separately without thereby forming a conjunctive intention to bring both about simultaneously.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Simple View attributes intentions to individual actions, not to action-pairs, so no irrational conjunctive intention is generated by it in bifurcated cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Bratman's argument thus conflates the distribution of intentionality across a strategy with the agent holding a single logically conjoined intention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Harman and others have argued that intention is best understood as a self-referential plan-state that need not be closed under the agent's beliefs about jointly achievable outcomes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If rational agents routinely compartmentalize intentions within larger plans without consistency requirements across all plan-components, the irrationality charge Bratman levels does not follow from the Simple View alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rejecting the Simple View is therefore not the uniquely motivated solution; revising the rationality norm governing intention-consistency is an equally well-grounded alternative.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityFree Will & Foreknowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Accepting the Simple View entails that an agent pursuing a bifurcated strategy i...An agent can rationally intend each of two outcomes separately without thereby f...Bratman's argument thus conflates the distribution of intentionality across a st...Harman and others have argued that intention is best understood as a self-refere...
    +6 moreShow less
    If rational agents routinely compartmentalize intentions within larger plans wit...It is irrational to hold both of those intentions while believing it is impossib...Rejecting the Simple View is the most direct way to block the attribution of thi...

    Similar

    The Simple View generates a contradiction: it attributes an irrational...81%Accepting the Simple View entails that an agent pursuing a bifurcated ...79%The agent in Bratman's case is stipulated to be wholly rational.77%The Categorical Imperative presumes that rational agents can conform t...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: action
    View source passageHide passage
    The simplest version of such an account depends on what Michael Bratman has dubbed “the Simple View.” This is the thesis that proposition (6) above, [The agent G'd intentionally] and, correspondingly, proposition (7) [The agent Fed with the intention of Ging] entail that, at the time of action, the agent intended to G. Surely, from the causalist point of view, the most natural account of Ging intentionally is that the action of Ging is governed by a present directed intention whose content for t
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Rejecting the Simple View is therefore not the uniquely motivated solution; revi...
    The Simple View attributes intentions to individual actions, not to action-pairs...
    The agent in Bratman's case is stipulated to be wholly rational.
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit