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
    Williams' argument for internalism about reasons is stron... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Williams' argument for internalism about reasons is stronger than the Classical Argument for internalism

    Moral ResponsibilityNo other argument is better
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    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.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Williams' argument grounds reasons in dispositions to be motivated, not actual desires
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Dispositions are sufficient to explain why an agent would be motivated under counterfactual conditions
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Actual desires are not necessary for such counterfactual motivation explanations
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Williams' 'sound deliberative route' criterion is so permissive it collapses internalism into a form of externalism, as Korsgaard and Parfit argue.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If any motivating state reachable via idealized deliberation counts, then reasons grounded in impartial concern or Kantian duty qualify as internal reasons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A view that cannot exclude paradigmatic externalist reasons fails as a distinctively internalist position, making it weaker than HTM-based accounts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The Classical Argument's dependence on HTM is a strength, not a weakness, because HTM is independently supported by the Humean tradition from Hume through Davidson.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Williams' disposition-based account inherits all motivational explanatory burdens of HTM while adding obscurity about what counts as a 'disposition to be motivated'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An argument built on well-articulated, debated premises like HTM is epistemically stronger than one resting on an underspecified dispositional modal claim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityNo other argument is better

    Connections

    4 topics

    Free Will & Foreknowledge2 linkedTruth & Knowledge1 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    A view that cannot exclude paradigmatic externalist reasons fails as a distincti...Actual desires are not necessary for such counterfactual motivation explanationsAn argument built on well-articulated, debated premises like HTM is epistemicall...Dispositions are sufficient to explain why an agent would be motivated under cou...
    +7 moreShow less
    If any motivating state reachable via idealized deliberation counts, then reason...The Classical Argument depends on the Humean Theory of Motivation (HTM), which c...

    Similar

    If the case for internalism rests on the explanatory power of desire o...87%If reasons internalism derives its justification from the explanatory ...87%Counterfactual Motivation internalism connects reasons only to counter...84%Reasons internalism states only a necessary condition on reasons, not ...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: reasons-internal-external
    View source passageHide passage
    Although Williams’ article is commonly seen as the classic defense of HTR, on this reading it only restricts agents’ reasons to their dispositions to be motivated, and not more narrowly to their actual desires. This is because dispositions are sufficient, and actual desires not necessary, in order to explain why somebody would be motivated under counterfactual conditions. This argument is therefore stronger than the Classical Argument because of its independence from HTM, which controversially c
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    The Classical Argument's dependence on HTM is a strength, not a weakness, becaus...
    Williams' 'sound deliberative route' criterion is so permissive it collapses int...
    Williams' argument grounds reasons in dispositions to be motivated, not actual d...
    Williams' argument is independent of HTM
    Williams' disposition-based account inherits all motivational explanatory burden...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit