Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Wittgenstein and Anscombe show that intentional action is constituted by reasons, not caused by internal appetitive states analogous to hunger.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Reasons cannot move us to action without some underlying motivational state; they require desire or appetite to gain purchase on behavior.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Neuroscientific evidence shows beliefs and desires are implemented in causal mechanisms; the constitution/causation distinction may be philosophically artificial.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Even paradigmatic cases of reason-based action (eating when hungry) involve both reasons and appetitive states working jointly, not separately.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Reasons are intrinsically normative and evaluative, whereas appetitive states are purely mechanical causes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Actions explained by reasons are rational and revisable when we recognize flawed reasoning; appetite-driven behavior lacks this feature.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The same external situation produces different actions depending on what reasons an agent accepts, not what appetites they possess.
?
How convincing is this?
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.