Rational Internalism (original) (raw)

"Why Be An Internalist About Reasons?"

Most internalists about practical reasons are drawn to internalism because they favor ethical naturalism or are persuaded of the Humean theory of motivation and think normative judgments necessarily motivate. I argue that even if we don’t share these internalists’ metaethical views, we should still take internalism seriously. Internalism offers an attractive account of what reasons are that brings out one way we’re all equally sources of claims on others. Because the account appeals to the comparatively uncontroversial normative standard provided by the procedural conception of rationality, it may also act as an Archimedean point against which we can brace ourselves in disputes about reasons. Internalism, unlike externalism, explains what makes some people better at responding to reasons than others. And thinking about what internalism and externalism about epistemic reasons might look like should make us skeptical about external practical reasons. I close by suggesting we should be more hopeful about discovering universally-shared internal reasons than most externalists and internalists have allowed.

"Internal Reasons and the Motivating Intuition"

Internalist theses, as they are usually stated, describe a necessary relation between an agent’s having a reason and some other, usually motivational, fact about the agent. So, for example, internalists might claim that an agent can have a reason to perform some act only if he has a relevant desire, or only if he would be motivated to perform it in suitably idealized circumstances. Why should we accept internalism about reasons? I begin by exploring the thought, appealed to by Bernard Williams and often cited in support of internalism, that reasons must be capable of explaining action: it must be possible for a fact that is a reason for an agent to act to be the reason he acts – the reason that motivates him. I call this the Motivating Intuition. As I argue (in section 1), it represents a key step in Williams’ argument for internalism. And (as I try to show in section 2), the Motivating Intuition has much to be said for it. The problem is that versions of internalism that reflect the Motivating Intuition are vulnerable to numerous counterexamples, and that attempts to revise the internalist thesis to avoid these counterexamples introduce a divide between normative reasons and possible explanations of action. The result is that workable versions of internalist theses lose the support of the Motivating Intuition, and so begin to appear unmotivated. But the same counterexamples that forced the modification of internalist theses, and others, should also lead us to reconsider the Motivating Intuition itself. Indeed, I argue (in sections 3 and 4) that we should reject the Motivating Intuition, and that examples of reasons we have to act which cannot, or should not, be the reasons why we act are in fact quite common. Where does this leave internalism? If the Motivating Intuition is misguided, should we reject the internalist thesis? Are there any other grounds for thinking there is a necessary connection between facts about our reasons and facts about our current motivational profile? I close (in section 5) by suggesting that there are.

Rationality, Justification, and the Internalism/Externalism Debate

Erkenntnis, 2007

In this paper, I argue that what underlies internalism about justification is a rationalist conception of justification, not a deontological conception of justification, and I argue for the plausibility of this rationalist conception of justification. The rationalist conception of justification is the view that a justified belief is a belief that is held in a rational way; since we exercise our rationality through conscious deliberation, the rationalist conception holds that a belief is justified iff a relevant possible instance of conscious deliberation would endorse the belief. The importance of conscious deliberation stems from its role in guiding us in acquiring true beliefs: whereas the externalist holds that if we wish to acquire true beliefs, we have to begin by assuming that some of our usual methods of belief formation generally provide us with true beliefs, the internalist holds that if we form beliefs by conscious deliberation, we can be conscious of reasons for thinking that our beliefs are true. Conscious deliberation can make us conscious of reasons because it proceeds via rational intuitions. I argue that despite the fallibility of rational intuition, rational intuitions do enable us to become conscious of reasons for belief.

Moral Reasons: A Defence of Internalism

In this paper, I argue that moral agents do not necessarily have good reason to behave morally. This, because having good reasons is contingent upon persons themselves. I do so by defending internalism about reasons and show that it leads to the untenability of moral rationalism. That is, moral truths or principles are not intrinsically reason-giving. However, they can be reason-giving when linked to someone’s subjective motivational set. I conclude that, under normal circumstances, people do have reason to behave morally, but not necessarily so.

Internalism and Hyperexternalism about Reasons

2012

Alan Goldman's Reasons from Within is one of the most thorough recent defenses of what might be called 'orthodox internalism' about practical reasons. Goldman's main target is an opposing view that includes a commitment to the following two theses: (O) that there are such things as objective values, and (E) that these values give rise to external reasons. One version of this view, which we can call 'orthodox externalism', also includes a commitment to the thesis (I) that rational people will be motivated by any reason they have of which they are aware. Goldman himself embraces (I), and deploys it frequently in his criticisms of orthodox externalism. But there is logical space for an externalist view that includes a commitment to (O) and (E), but that denies (I). The resulting "hyperexternalist" view holds that some reasons need not motivate us, even if we are rational. In this paper I argue that Goldman's criticisms of orthodox externalism leave hyperexternalism untouched, and that his specific criticisms of my own version of hyperexternalism do not work. In light of Goldman's criticisms of orthodox externalism and my own criticisms of Goldman's view, hyperexternalism emerges as the favored option.

Being More Realistic About Reasons: On Rationality and Reasons Perspectivism

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research

This paper looks at whether it is possible to unify the requirements of rationality with the demands of normative reasons. It might seem impossible to do because one depends upon the agent’s perspective and the other upon features of the situation. Enter Reasons Perspectivism. Reasons perspectivists think they can show that rationality does consist in responding correctly to reasons by placing epistemic constraints on these reasons. They think that if normative reasons are subject to the right epistemic constraints, rational requirements will correspond to the demands generated by normative reasons. While this proposal is prima facie plausible, it cannot ultimately unify reasons and rationality. There is no epistemic constraint that can do what reasons perspectivists would need it to do. Some constraints are too strict. The rest are too slack. This points to a general problem with the reasons-first program. Once we recognize that the agent’s epistemic position helps determine what she should do, we have to reject the idea that the features of the agent’s situation can help determine what we should do. Either rationality crowds out reasons and their demands or the reasons will make unreasonable demands.

Rationalist restrictions and external reasons

Philosophical studies, 2010

Historically, the most persuasive argument against external reasons proceeds through a rationalist restriction: For all agents A, and all actions U, there is a reason for A to U only if Uing is rationally accessible from A's actual motivational states. Here I distinguish conceptions of rationality, show which one the internalist must rely on to argue against external reasons, and argue that a rationalist restriction that features that conception of rationality is extremely implausible. Other conceptions of rationality can render the restriction true, but then the restriction simply fails to rule out external reasons.