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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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