A (Selective) Outline of Velleman's "The Guise of the Good"

Disclaimer: The following is a (selective) outline of what I take to be the central argument of David Velleman's paper, “The Guise of the Good”. A number of Velleman's specific arguments have been omitted, not because I believe they are unimportant or uninteresting, but for the sake of brevity.

SYNOPSIS OF PAPER: Velleman argues that the Guise of the Good theory (henceforth, “GG theory”) errs by either making an evaluative term (henceforth, “the good”) part of the propositional content of the attitude motivating an intentional action (henceforth, “a desire”) or by equating the good with the direction of fit of a desire. The first strategy fails because it entails that an agent can have a desire only if she possesses the concept of the good, and the second strategy fails because it conflates the constitutive aim of an attitude with its direction of fit. Velleman concludes by advancing the positive proposal that desire aims at the attainable.

BRIEF OUTLINE OF PAPER:

I Motivating cognitivism: The Primacy of Rational Guidance (pp. 3-7)

II Sophisticated Cognitivism: The Direction-of-Fit Approach (pp. 7-9)

III The Aim of Desire: Objections to Sophisticated Cognitivism (pp. 10-19)

DETAILED OUTLINE OF PAPER:

I Motivating cognitivism: The Primacy of Rational Guidance

Summary: Velleman defines GG theory as the claim that intentional action aims at the good. GG Theory is motivated by an attempt to reconcile two seemingly incompatible stories of the origin of human action; namely, the story of motivation and the story of rational guidance. Non-cognitivism emphasizes the story of motivation at the expense of the story of rational guidance, and cognitivism emphasizes the story of rational guidance at the expense of the story of motivation. The main motivation for rejecting non-cognitivism and adopting cognitivism, according to Velleman, is a desire to preserve the commonsense story of the origin of human action.

Discussion:

(i) Story of motivation = an agent acts intentionally when her action is caused by a desire for some outcome and a belief that the action will promote it. (p. 3)

(ii) Story of rational guidance = an agent acts intentionally when the action justifying character of a proposition prompts her action via her grasp of that proposition. (p. 4)

Noncognitivism = emphasises story of motivation at the expense of the story of rational guidance.

Weakness of non-cognitivism = it is at odds with the commonsense story. “In the commonsense story, the agent is moved toward action because his reasons justify it; whereas in the noncognitivist story, his reasons justify his action in virtue of moving him toward it.” (p. 5)

Cognitivism = emphasises story of rational guidance at the expense of the story or motivation.

Weakness of cognitivism = entails that an agent can have a desire only if she has evaluative concept. “If the cognitivist seriously means to characterise desire as an attitude toward an evaluative proposition, then he implies that the capacity to desire requires the possession of evaluative concepts. Yet a young child can want things long before it has acquired the concept of their being worth wanting or desirable.” (p. 7)

Upshot: Noncognitivism is unattractive because it fails to preserve the commonsense story of motivation and cognitivism is implausible because it entails that an agent can act intentionally only if it possesses certain evaluative concepts.

II Sophisticated Cognitivism: The Direction-of-Fit Approach

Summary: Sophisticated cognitivism unpacks the claim that the attitude motivating an intentional action (henceforth, I will simply speak of a desire) aims at the good in terms of the attitude's direction-of-fit. On this view, a cognitive attitude (like belief) may be said to aim after truth because its propositional object is regarded as a factum (something that is the case); while a conative attitude (like desire) may be said to aim after the good because its propositional object is regarded as a faciendum (something that is to be made the case). The upshot is that a propositional attitude is characterised, not only by the proposition that embodies its content, but also by the attitude's direction of fit (i.e., whether it represents its propositional object as a factum or faciendum).

Discussion:

cognitive attitude = a proposition is grasped as patterned after the world (or factum).

conative attitude = a proposition is grasped as a pattern for the world to follow (or faciendum).

(i) Simple cognitivism = involves action-justifying propositions.

According to simple cognitivism, desires aim at the good in virtue of their propositional content, which include the predicate “good”. (p. 6)

(ii) Sophisticated cognitivism = involves action-justifying attitudes.

According to sophisticated cognitivism, desires aim at the good in virtue of type of attitude it is—namely, that it is a conative attitude—rather than in terms of its propositional content. (pp. 8ff)

Upshot: According to sophisticated cognitivism, desires justify or provide reasons for action, not because of their propositional content, but because of the way the propositional content of a desire is grasped; namely, as something to be brought about. (p. 9)

III The Aim of Desire: Objections to Sophisticated Cognitivism

Summary: According to Velleman, desire aims, not at the good, but at the attainable. This follows from the following three theses. First, the constitutive aim of belief is whatever distinguishes it from all other states with a cognitive direction of fit; namely, the fact that beliefs are only correct when they are true. Second, what distinguishes desire from all other states with a conative direction of fit is not the fact that it aims after the good, since this is something it shares with all other conative states. Third, what distinguishes desire from all other conative states is the fact that desire aims at the attainable. The upshot is that the central thesis of sophisticated cognitivism—namely, that desire aims at the good—is mistaken.

Discussion:

Velleman exploits an analogy from belief to argue that desires do not aim at the good. He draws a distinction between the direction of fit of belief and the aim of belief (p. 12 ff):

(i) direction of fit of belief = that in virtue of which it is a cognitive state.

(ii) aim of belief = that in virtue of which it is correct just in case it is true

The following is a rough reconstruction of Velleman's argument. (Note: "given" indicates a theoretically motivated claim, and "observed" indicates an empirically motivated claim.)

(1) Belief is a cognitive state in virtue of its direction of fit. (given)

(2) Belief does not share the same aim as other cognitive states. (observed)

(3) Aim of belief = what sets belief apart from other cognitive states. (loosely from (1) and (2))

(4) Aim of desire = what sets desire apart from other conative states. (by analogy from (3))

(5) Sophisticated cognitivism entails that desire aims at the good in virtue of its direction of fit. (given)

(6) Sophisticated cognitivism entails that all conative states have the same direction of fit. (given)

(7) Sophisticated cognitivism entails that all conative states aim at the good. (loosely from (5) and (6))

(8) Sophisticated cognitivism entails that the good is not the aim of desire. (loosely from (4) and (7))

(8) What sets desire apart from all other conative states = being directed at the attainable. (observed)

(9) Aim of desire = being directed at the attainable. (loosely from (4) and (8))

Upshot: Velleman's negative thesis is that, contra sophisticated cognitivism, the constitutive aim of desire is not the good. Velleman's positive thesis is that the constitutive aim of desire is the attainable (p. 17). Given that the constitutive aim of belief is the truth, it follows from Velleman's positive thesis that desire stands to the attainable as belief stands to the truth.

Impugning the Desire-as-Belief Thesis

I believe that the Desire-as-Belief Thesis is unacceptable as a way of unpacking the Broadly Anscombean View - namely, the claim that the good is the aim of desire in a sense analogous to how truth is the aim of belief - because of the following pair of asymmetries between desires and beliefs.

Truth-Value Asymmetry

Beliefs are truth-assessable while desires are not. This asymmetry between desires and beliefs is reflected in our ordinary linguistic practice. For example, if I believe that George Washington was the first president of the United States, we ordinarily think of my belief as the sort of thing that could be true or false. By contrast, we do not ordinarily conceive of desires as truth-assessable. For example, if I desire to purchase a flat screen television, we do not ordinarily think of my desire as the sort of thing that could be true or false. Moreover, I believe the following theoretical account may be offered in defence of Truth-Value Asymmetry. First, I hold that a psychological state may be conceived of as truth-assessable just in case it represents the state of affairs that constitutes its intentional object to be the case or it represents a particular proposition to be true. Second, I take the preceding necessary and sufficient conditions to be met by the psychological state of belief. For example, if I believe that George Washington was the first president of the United States, I hold that the state of affairs of George Washington being the first president of the United States is the intentional object of my belief. Moreover, I hold that my belief represents this state of affairs as being the case. (Or, if one prefers, we may say that the belief that George Washington is the first president of the United States represents the proposition, “George Washington is the first president of the United States” to be true.) Third, I take the preceding necessary and sufficient conditions not to be met by the psychological state of desire. For example, if I desire to purchase a flat screen television, I take the state of affairs of purchasing a flat screen television to be the intentional object of my desire. Moreover, I hold that my desire does not represent my purchasing a flat screen television to be the case. The upshot of the three preceding theoretical commitments is that the psychological state of belief is truth-assessable, while the psychological state of desire is not.

Rational-Commitment Asymmetry

One is guilty of irrationality if one knowingly has inconsistent beliefs, but one is not guilty of irrationality if one knowingly has inconsistent desires. This asymmetry is also reflected in how we ordinarily talk and think about desires. According to the present objection, one may have conflicting desires—for example, the desire to have a cigarette, and the desire to stick to one's New Year's resolution to quit smoking (where one recognises that these represent mutually exclusive desires)—without being guilty of irrationality. However, the same is not true of belief. If one believes that it is good to stick to one's New Year's resolution to quit smoking, and one also believes that is good to have a cigarette (where one recognises that these represent mutually exclusive beliefs), then one is guilty of irrationality. Moreover, I believe the following theoretical motivation may be offered in support of Rational-Commitment Asymmetry. First, I hold that beliefs are commitment-involving psychological states. For example, to believe that smoking is good is to be committed to holding that smoking is good. Second, I hold that desires are not commitment-involving psychological states. For example, to desire to have a cigarette is not to be committed to having a cigarette, since one may have such a desire and yet decide not to act on it. Moreover, one may desire to have a cigarette without being committed to the goodness of having a cigarette. Third, I hold that one is only rationally assessable for having a psychological state if it is commitment-involving. The upshot is that one is rationally assessable for having beliefs one recognises to be inconsistent, but one is not rationally assessable for having desires that one recognises to be inconsistent.

In summary, I reject the Desire-as-Belief Thesis because it overlooks two important asymmetries between desire and belief; Truth-Value Asymmetry and Rational-Commitment Asymmetry.

Why-Questions and Motive-Explanations

In this post, I wish to begin constructing a theory of action that builds on the foundation I set up in my previous post. I suggested that the most general purpose of a minimal causal account for some event e2 is to specify which event, from a number of actual or hypothetical alternatives, would feature in a robust causal account of e2, were such an account to be given. I believe this generalises to why-questions of the following form:

(Q) Why did the cat scratch at the door?

One possible because-answers to (Q) is:

(A) Because it wanted to get into the room

The because-answers given in (A) specifies which event would feature in a robust causal account of the action described in (Q). According to (A), it is the cat’s desire to get into the room—rather than, say, a desire to sharpen its claws—that would feature saliently in a robust causal account of the cat scratching at the door.

Unlike the because-answers given in response to the why-question: "Why did the window break?", the because-answer given in response to why-question (Q) implicates a desire - namely, the cat’s desire to get into the room. I hold that to desire X is for X to appear to be good. By ‘good’ I mean that which is beneficial. We may give the concept of the beneficial a Darwinian gloss by defining it in terms of that which promotes biological fitness. To say that a cognitive mechanism represents something as beneficial does not mean that the animal possessing that cognitive mechanism must have a concept of the “beneficial”. Consider, we may say that a cat’s visual system represent something as being true (for example, that there is a mouse over there) without attributing to the cat the concept of truth. Likewise, we may say that a particular cognitive mechanism of an animal aims after biological fitness, even though the animal in question has no such concept and is aware of no such aim. Thus, my claim that to desire something is for that thing to appear to promote biological fitness is meant to be definitional; it applies to all animals that have desires, whether or not they possess the concept of the good, the beneficial or of biological fitness.

In the proceeding discussion I will use the ‘good’ as a shorthand for the beneficial or that which promotes biological fitness. In the light of the above considerations, I take the following conditional to express a necessary condition for desiring X:

(D1) If S desires X, then X appears to be good to S.

This claim should be distinguished from the stronger claim that to desire something is to judge that it is good.

(D2) If S desires X, then S judges that X is good.

The difference between X appearing to be good and judging that X is good may be illustrated with an analogy from theoretical reasoning. To desire X is for X to appear to be good in the same sense that seeing a partially submerged stick as bent is for it to appear to be true that the stick is bent. Often, having an appearance that things are a certain way is enough to prompt one to judge that things are that way. Similarly, having a desire for X is often enough to prompt an “unconditional judgement” in favour of the relevant course of action. However, in the case of agents equipped with the appropriate deliberative capacities, having it appear that something is true may fail to yield the judgement that it is so. I take the same to be true of having an appearance that something is good. Thus, my claim that to desire something is for that thing to appear to be good stands in contrast to the stronger claim that to desire something is to judge that it is good.

Significantly, a single subject may have conflicting sets of appearances. For example, a submerged stick may appear bent when one looks at it, yet feel straight when one touches it. We may say that the stick appears bent, relative to the visual sensory modality, and appears straight, relative to the tactile sensory modality. I believe the same holds with respect to desires. The same thing may appear good relative to the desire for an ice-cream, let us say, but appear bad relative to the desire to remain faithful to one’s diet. Thus, to desire something is always for that thing to appear to be good from a certain perspective.

(D3) If S desires X, then X appears to be good, from a certain perspective

The claim that the cat’s desire to get into the room explains its scratching at the door presupposes that the cat has the belief that scratching at the door would somehow facilitate its getting into the room. Thus, the because-answer offered in response to (ii) takes the form of a belief-desire explanation. Such belief-desire explanations are limited to actions carried out by animals (such as cats, dogs and people) to which we may correctly attribute beliefs and desires. Thus, belief-desire explanations represent a special subset of because-answers. The desire provides us with an agent's motivation for acting and the belief provides us with the explanation of why the particular action was performed. Thus, the agent’s desires and beliefs combine to provide a motive-explanation. Contra Davidson, I believe that motive-explanations (or what he calls "reason-explanations") are equally applicable to rational and pre-rational animals. In this respect, I am in complete agreement with Mary Midgley:

In discussing the central importance of motives, I shall make no special distinction between man and other species, because I think the problem is the same for both. There is nothing anthropomorphic in speaking of the motivation of animals. It is anthropomorphic to call the lion the King of Beasts, but not to talk of him as moved, now by fear, now by curiosity, now by territorial anger. These are not the names of hypothetical inner states, but of major patterns in anyone’s life, the signs of which are regular and visible. Anyone who has to deal with lions learns to read such signs, and survives by doing so. Both with animals and with men, we respond to the feelings and intentions we read in an action, not to the action itself. (Midgley (1978), Beast and Man., pp. 105-6.)

One attractive feature of the above definition of motivation is that it allows for a natural continuity between doxastic and action motivation. On this picture, just as the true is the most abstract characterisation of the aim of belief, so the good is the most abstract characterisation of the aim of desire.

In conclusion, I hold that an action counts as intentional if and only if it possible to give a correct belief-desire or motive-explanation of that action. Hence, any action or event for which a belief-desire explanation cannot be correctly given fails to count as intentional. On this view, because-answers that implicate motive-explanations serve two purposes. First, like because-answers in general, they specify which events would feature in a robust causal account of the event, were such an account to be given. Second, the applicability of motive-explanations determines if an action is intentional or unintentional. On the present account, cats and dogs constitute intentional agents, but not rational ones. (I will have more to say about this later.) Thus, my position differs from that of Davidson since I do not see intentionality as co-extensive with rationality.

Davidson on Weakness of Will (Part 3)

In my last two posts I described Davidson as advocating a two-stage model of practical reasoning. In this post, I wish to limn an alternative, and what I believe to be a more charitable, interpretation of Davidson’s account. The central insight driving this alternative reading of Davidson is the intuition (originally due to Elizabeth Anscombe) that there is a conceptual connection between intentional action and the applicability of the “why?” question to one’s actions. (I owe this point to Agnes Callard.) To ask “Why did Sue wave at Pam?”, is to ask for Sue’s reason for acting as she did. This question only makes sense if Sue waved her hand deliberately; that is, if her actions were intentional. Hence, for an agent to act intentionally is for that agent to act for a reason.

Davidson defines a reason to φ as the combination of a desire (or pro-attitude) for actions of a certain kind and a belief that φ is an action of that kind. For example, if Sue’s desire to signal her friend Pam in a crowded pub motivates her to wave her hand, then her reason for waving consists in her desire to signal her friend and her belief that waving would be a signalling of her friend. On this belief-desire model, an agent’s (primary) reason for performing an action may be restated in a practical syllogism comprised of a major premise (M), a minor premise (m) and a conclusion (C):

(M): ψ (signalling Pam) is desirable
(m): φ (waving) is an instance of ψ
(C): Therefore, φ is desirable

Thus, for each action one can construct a practical syllogism showing that the action was desirable from agent’s perspective. According to Davidson, what it means for an action to be desirable is that the agent would perform this action, provided that there are no overriding desires:

If my thesis is correct, someone who says honestly ‘it is desirable that I stop smoking’ has some pro attitude towards his stopping smoking. He feels some inclination to do it; in fact he will do it if nothing stands in the way, he knows how, and he has no contrary values or desires. (Davidson in "Intending")

I will refer to the practical syllogism that corresponds to the reason for a certain action as its rationalisation. Two important points are worth noting with respect to rationalisations. First, rationalisations are explanations of an agent’s actions that reflect the point of view of the agent. Second, while a rationalisation spells out the reasons for an agent’s actions, it does not specify whether or not the agent’s reasons are good reasons. Thus, Davidson writes:

When we talk of reasons in this way, we do not require that the reasons be good ones. We learn something about a man’s reasons for starting a war when we learn that he did it with the intention of ending all wars, even if we know that his belief that starting a war would end all wars was false. Similarly, a desire to humiliate an acquaintance may be someone’s reason for cutting him at a party though an observer might, in a more normative vein, think that was no reason. The falsity of a belief, or the patent wrongness of a value or desire, does not disqualify the belief or desire from providing an explanatory reason. (Davidson in "Intending")

Generally, rationalisations enable us to see the actions of an agent as reasonable in the light of an agent’s beliefs and desires. But that is not to say that the agent’s actions would be reasonable if all her beliefs and desires were considered. In the cases of weakness of will, an agent’s actions are only reasonable in the light of specific beliefs and desires, but not in the light of all her beliefs and desires. (I will have more to say about this below.)

In light of the above considerations, I propose that we see Davidson as offering a two-level (rather than two-stage) model of practical reasoning. On this reading, Davidson’s account is seen as providing two levels of explanation for intentional actions: a rational explanation and a causal explanation. The rational explanation of an agent’s actions consists in a practical syllogism that rationalises the action. The reasons an agent has for acting must, if they are to rationalise the action, be the reasons on which she acted. That is, the reasons must have played a causal role in the aetiology of the action. This causal explanation, in which an agent’s reason is seen as the cause of her action, constitutes the second level of explanation.

To rationalise an action is to show how the action is judged to be best, from a certain perspective of the agent. As such, a rationalisation is to be identified with a prima facie judgement which is relative to the set of reasons from which the agent ultimately acts. However, the prima facie judgement from which an agent acts (that which rationalises her actions) may not be the only prima facie judgement made by the agent. For example, in cases of moral conflict, an agent has reasons for two (or more) competing courses of action. On such occasions, the agent makes more than one prima facie judgement, each one relative to the reasons the agent has for each competing course of action. However, since there can only be one primary reason for any given action—namely, the reason which is the cause of the action—then, in cases of moral conflict, only one of the prima facie judgements can correspond with an agent’s primary reason. Combining this claim with our earlier observation that each prima facie judgement is relative to some set of reasons, we may say that the prima facie judgement that is relative to an agent’s primary reason is the one that rationalises the agent’s actions.

On the two-level model, a prima facie judgement is expressive of an agent’s reasons in their evaluative capacity. However, as we already noted, the very reasons that factor into an agent’s evaluations may also cause (or motivate) the agent to act. In there motivational capacity, an agent’s reasons express her sans phrase judgements. Within the two-level explanatory framework, the very reason that features in an agent’s evaluations may also feature in her motivations, albeit in two different capacities.

With these considerations in place, let us return to the problem of continence and incontinence. Recall, both continence and incontinence only arise in cases of moral conflict; occasions on which an agent makes two (or more) prima facie judgements in favour of opposing courses of action. An agent counts as continent when her sans phrase judgement corresponds with the prima facie judgement that is relative to her total set of reasons. An agent counts as incontinent when her sans phrase judgement corresponds with a prima facie judgement that does not reflect her all-things-considered judgement. For example, consider the case of Mr. Smith who makes the following three prima facie judgements:

(c) Prima facie, having a third glass of wine is better than not having a third glass of wine, given r1.

(d) Prima facie, not having a third glass of wine is better than having a third glass of wine, given r2.

(e) Prima facie, not having a third glass of wine is better than having a third glass of wine, given R (where R represents his total set of reasons).

If Mr. Smith were to make the sans phrase judgement that, “not having a third glass of wine is best”, then his sans phrase judgement would correspond with his all-things-considered judgement, as represented in (e). In such a case, Mr. Smith would count as acting continently. However, if Mr. Smith were to make the sans phrase judgement that “having a third glass of wine is best”, then his sans phrase judgement would fail to correspond with his all-things-considered judgement. In such a case, Mr. Smith would count as acting incontinently. However, even if Mr. Smith were to make the latter sans phrase judgement, his actions would still correspond with one of his prima facie judgements, namely that represented in (c). Thus, it is still possible to give a rationalisation of Mr. Smith’s actions, albeit one that does not reflect his all-things-considered judgement. This is the upshot of our earlier observation that rationalising an action requires that we show that the action is based on reasons, not that is based on good reasons. As such, Mr. Smith (or the incontinent agent) still counts as acting intentionally.
With the two-level reading now on the table, we can return to the earlier worry about there being a motivational gap in Davidson’s account. Recall, the motivational gap arose because in order to preserve the consistency of (P1)-(P3), Davidson had to picture prima facie judgements (which are relative to an agent’s reasons) as purely evaluative, while the sans phrase judgements (which implicate the desires of agent) are seen as purely motivational. The upshot was that on the two-stage model an agent could not be motivated by her reasons which (on that picture) were relegated to her non-motivating prima facie judgements.

On the two-level model, the distinction between the purely evaluative prima facie judgements and purely motivational sans phrase judgements remains. However, the prima facie and sans phrase now represents two dimensions of explanation for a single piece of practical reasoning. On the two-level model, the same reasons that features (in their evaluative capacity) in the agent’s prima facie judgements may also feature (in their motivational capacity) in the agent’s sans phrase judgements. The upshot is that on the two level-reading, an agent’s reasons can be said to cause (or motivate) the agent to act, thus avoiding the motivational gap that threatened the two-stage model.

Davidson on Weakness of Will (Part 2)

In my previous post, I suggested that Davidson's bipartite account of practical reasoning is able to preserve the consistency of (P1)-(P3). However, there is a worry that Davidson’s solution leaves it unclear how the weak-willed agent can be said to be motivated by her reasons. This is the objection I wish to consider in the present post.

According to Davidson, the akrates acts for a reason, but not from her all-thing-considered judgement. Recall that in our example, Mr. Smith has three prima facie judgements—(c), (d) and (e)—each of which is relative to some set of reasons:

(c) Prima facie, having a third glass of wine is better than not having a third glass of wine, given r1.

(d) Prima facie, not having a third glass of wine is better than having a third glass of wine, given r2.

(e) Prima facie, not having a third glass of wine is better than having a third glass of wine, given R.

However, Mr. Smith (being weak-willed) ultimately decides to have a third glass of wine, against his all-things-considered judgement.

In the case of the continent agent, the action generating sans phrase judgement corresponds with the agent’s all-things-considered prima facie judgement. That is, the continent agent acts from her total set of reasons. However, in the case of Mr. Smith, his sans phrase judgement corresponds with (c) rather than (e). Hence, Mr. Smith (i.e., the incontinent agent) acts from a subset of his reasons, r1, instead of his total set of reasons, R. Herein, according to Davidson, lies the irrationality of the incontinent agent; she fails to perform the action judged best on the basis of all her reasons.

However, as limned above, there seems to remain a gap in Davidson’s account. On his picture, an agent’s prima facie judgement is always relative to some reason. However, an agent’s sans phrase judgement is not. This opens up a lacuna between one’s reasoned-based evaluations and one’s action generating judgements. Davidson attempts to fill this gap via what he refers to as the “principle of continence”:

(POC) Perform the action judged best on the basis of all available relevant reasons.

Davidson insists that (POC) is a principle that is binding on every rational agent, the violation of which constitutes the fundamental shortcoming of the akrates. Hence, Davidson believes that there is a normative imperative to always act from one’s total reasons. Strictly speaking, as worded by Davidson, (POC) is unable to bridge the logical gap between an agent’s prima facie judgements and her sans phrase judgements. However, we can equip it for this purpose by rephrasing it as follows:

(POC*) Do what is prima facie better, given R.

With the revised version of the principle of continence in place, the logical gap between an agent’s prima facie and sans phrase judgments has been bridged.

However, there still remains a motivational gap; a fact which the possibility of incontinence illustrates. If the principle of continence were sufficient to bridge the motivational gap between an agent’s prima facie and sans phrase judgements then any agent who was rationally committed to the principle of continence would be immune to weakness of will. However, such a conclusion seems implausible since it would imply that the akrates suffered from an extreme intellectual defect. Recall, Davidson invokes the principle of continence as a rule that every rational agent should accept as such. Consequently, to suggest that the akrates believes that she is not rationally obliged to act in accordance with the principle of continence is, by Davidson’s lights, to drum her out of the ranks of rational agents altogether

Davidson’s distinction between prima facie and sans phrase judgements drives a wedge between an agent’s reason-based practical assessments and desire-based motivations. On the one hand, one’s prima facie judgements are always relative to a set of reasons while one’s sans phrase judgements are not. On the other hand, only sans phrase judgements, according to Davidson, are expressive of one’s wants and therefore only sans phrase judgements can be said to motivate. The upshot seems to be that, on Davidson’s account of practical reasoning, one cannot be directly motivated by one’s reasons.

Another way to make this problem vivid is by posing the question: is (POC*) a prima facie or sans phrase judgement? There two considerations that tell against it being the former. First, it is not of the right logical form. (Although (POC*) represents a judgement about an agent’s prima facie judgements, it is not itself a prima facie judgement.) Second, if it were a prima facie judgement (assuming we were able to reformulate it somehow), it would be unable to bridge the motivational gap between Davidson's two stages of practical reasoning. (POC*) must implicate the desires of the agent if it is to serve the motivational role necessary. However, as we noted above, prima facie judgements fail to implicate the desires of an agent. On the other hand, (POC*) cannot be a sans phrase judgement since it does not consistently generate action (as the possibility of incontinence illustrates).

The suggestion that there is a motivational gap between an agent's prima facie and sans phrase judgements seems problematic since it seems to fly in the face of Davidson’s foursquare insistence that one is caused to act by one’s reasons.

---

---

Davidson on Weakness of Will (Part 1)

According to Davidson, some agent a acts incontinently in performing some action x iff:

(D1) a does x intentionally;
(D2) a believes there is an alternative action y open to him; and
(D3) a judges that, all things considered, it would be better to do y than to do x.

For example, we can imagine an agent, let us call him Mr. Smith, who has the all-things-considered judgement that it would be better not to have a third glass of wine, and yet—freely, deliberately, and for a reason—proceeds to have a third glass of wine. Thus described, Mr. Smith would constitute an incontinent agent. Given the above definition of incontinence, the following three principles seem to be in conflict:

(P1) If some agent a wants to do x more that she wants to do y and she believes herself free to do either x or y, then she will intentionally do x if she does either x or y intentionally.

(P2) If a judges that it would be better to do x than to do y, then she wants to do x more than she wants to do y.

(P3) There are incontinent actions.

Davidson’s goal is to show that (P1)-(P3) do not contradict one another, and that we therefore do not need to give any of them up. He maintains that (P1)-(P3) only seem inconsistent because of a tacit assumption that moral principles take the form of universalised conditionals. The first step towards loosening the grip of this idea, according to Davidson, is to observe that judgements of the form ‘x is better than y’ that we make when deliberating about an action are always prima facie judgements. In the Mr. Smith example, the relevant prima facie judgements may be put as follows:

(a) Prima Facie, having a third glass of wine is better than not having a third glass of wine.

(b) Prima Facie, not having a third glass of wine is better than having a third glass of wine.

These judgements are prima facie in the sense that they fall short of the full-blown practical judgements that culminate in action. According to Davidson, prima facie judgements are always relative to some set of reasons in the same manner in which judgements of probability are always relative to a certain body of evidence. Weakness of will only arises in cases in which an agent has reasons for two mutually exclusive courses of action; what Davidson refers to as “cases of moral conflict”:

By a case of moral conflict I mean a case where there are good reasons both for performing an action and for performing one that rules it out (perhaps refraining from the action). There is conflict in this minimal sense whenever the agent is aware of considerations that, taken alone, would lead to mutually incompatible actions. . . Clearly enough, incontinence can exist only when there is conflict in this sense, for the incontinent man holds one course to be better (for a reason) and yet does something else (also for a reason). [Davidson [1969], p. 105, Italics mine]

Thus, by Davidson’s lights, Mr. Smith has reasons in support of both (a) and (b). For example, Mr. Smith’s reasons in support of (a) may include the fact that having a third glass of wine would be pleasant and it would ameliorate his depression. Thus, Mr. Smith thinks that in certain respects having a third glass of wine would be, prima facie, best. Let us call whatever reasons Mr. Smith may have in favour of (a) as r1. However, there are certain other respects in which Mr. Smith thinks that refraining from having a third glass of wine would, prima facie, be best. For example, we may suppose that Mr. Smith believes that having a third glass of wine would leave him feeling hung over and would jeopardise his job interview in the morning. Let us refer to the reasons that Mr. Smith has in favour of (b) as r2. Making good on the idea that both of Mr. Smith’s prima facie judgements are based on reasons we may restate (a) and (b) as follows:

(c) Prima facie, having a third glass of wine is better than not having a third glass of wine, given r1.

(d) Prima facie, not having a third glass of wine is better than having a third glass of wine, given r2.

To say that Mr. Smith has an all-things-considered judgement that it would be best not to have a third glass of wine means that when r1 and r2 are both considered, along with any other relevant factors, Mr. Smith arrives at the conclusion that not having a third glass of wine is best, given all the available reasons. We may express Mr. Smith’s all-things-considered judgement, where “R” represents the total set of reasons Mr. Smith possesses, as follows:

(e) Prima facie, not having a third glass of wine is better than having a third glass of wine, given R.

Since prima facie judgements are conditional, they are not of the right logical form to feature in a universal conditional. However, if we are to maintain that there are intentional actions (something Davidson takes as a truism) then there must also be unconditional judgements which culminate in actions. This leads to what may be described as a bipartite account of practical reasoning. According to Davidson, there are two categories of judgements that fall under the umbrella of practical reasoning: (1) conditional prima facie judgements and (2) unconditional sans phrase judgements. Only the latter implicates the wants and desires of an agent and thus, from a motivational point of view, only the latter can generate action. Since (P1) and (P2) both make reference to the wants of an agent, they must both implicate unconditional sans phrase judgements. The all-things-considered judgement of the incontinent agent (which figures in (P3)) are not connected to the agent’s wants or desires and is therefore an example of a conditional prima facie judgement. Such judgements do not culminate in action. Since the types of judgements that figure in (P1) and (P2) on the one hand, are different from the types of judgements that figure in (P3), on the other, there is no inconsistency in (P1)-(P3).