Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 603–614 | Cite as

Changing Direction on Direction of Fit

Article

Abstract

In this paper, I show that we should understand the direction of fit of beliefs and desires in normative terms. After rehearsing a standard objection to Michael Smith’s analysis of direction of fit, I raise a similar problem for Lloyd Humberstone’s analysis. I go on to offer my own account, according to which the difference between beliefs and desires is determined by the normative relations such states stand in. I argue that beliefs are states which we have reason to change in light of the world, whereas desires are states that give us reason to change the world. After doing this, I show how the view avoids various objections, including two from David Sobel and David Copp. The paper ends by briefly discussing the relevance of the view to the Humean theory of motivation.

Keywords

Direction of fit Belief Desire Humean theory of motivation Reasons Normativity of mind 

References

  1. Anscombe GEM (2000) Intention 2nd edn. HarvardGoogle Scholar
  2. Brandom R (2000) Articulating reasons. HarvardGoogle Scholar
  3. Broome J (2004) Reasons. In: Wallace J, Pettit P, Scheffler S and Smith M (eds) Reason and value: essays on the moral philosophy of Joseph Raz. Oxford University Press, pp 28–55Google Scholar
  4. Broome J (unfinished manuscript) Rationality through reasoningGoogle Scholar
  5. Davidson D (2001) Actions, reasons, causes (2001a) in his. pp 3–20Google Scholar
  6. Gibbard A (2003) Truth and correct belief. Phil Issues 15:338–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Humberstone L (1992) Directions of fit. Mind 101(401):59–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kolodny N (2005) Why be rational. Mind 114(455):509–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Platts M (1979) Ways of meaning. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Schroeder M (2009) Means-end coherence, stringency, and subjective reasons. Philos Stud 143(2):223–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Setiya K (2007) Cognitivism about instrumental reason. Ethics 117(4):649–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Shah N (2003) How truth governs belief. Philos Rev 112(4):447–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Smith M (1987) The Humean theory of motivation. Mind 96(381):36–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Smith M (1994) The moral problem. BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  15. Sobel D, Copp D (2001) Against directions of fit. Analysis 61(1):44–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Velleman D (1992) The guise of the good. Nous 26:3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wedgwood R (2002) The aim of belief. Philos Perspect 16:267–297Google Scholar
  18. Zangwill N (1998) Direction of fit and normative functionalism. Philos Stud 91:173–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyThe University of ReadingReadingUK

Personalised recommendations