Advertisement

Acta Analytica

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 1–23 | Cite as

Moore's Paradox in Belief and Desire

  • John N. WilliamsEmail author
Article

Abstract

Is there a Moore’s paradox in desire? I give a normative explanation of the epistemic irrationality, and hence absurdity, of Moorean belief that builds on Green and Williams’ normative account of absurdity. This explains why Moorean beliefs are normally irrational and thus absurd, while some Moorean beliefs are absurd without being irrational. Then I defend constructing a Moorean desire as the syntactic counterpart of a Moorean belief and distinguish it from a ‘Frankfurt’ conjunction of desires. Next I discuss putative examples of rational and irrational desires, suggesting that there are norms of rational desire. Then I examine David Wall’s groundbreaking argument that Moorean desires are always unreasonable. Next I show against this that there are rational as well as irrational Moorean desires. Those that are irrational are also absurd, although there seem to be absurd desires that are not irrational. I conclude that certain norms of rational desire should be rejected.

Keywords

Moore's paradox Belief Desire Norms Absurdity Irrationality 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am extremely grateful to Claudio de Almeida for insightful and sharp comments. These helped me clarify the paper substantially. It is part of project 07-C208-SMU-013 funded by the School of Social Sciences, Singapore Management University.

References

  1. Armstrong, D. M. (1973). Belief, truth, and knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chan, T. (2010). Moore’s paradox is not just another pragmatic paradox. Synthese, 173(3), 211–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. David, M. (2005). Truth as the primary epistemic goal: A working hypothesis. In E. Sosa & M. Steup (Eds.), Contemporary debates in epistemology (pp. 296–312). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. de Almeida, C. (2001). What Moore’s paradox is about. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 62(1), 33–58.Google Scholar
  5. de Almeida, C. (2007). Moorean absurdity: An epistemological analysis. In M. S. Green & J. N. Williams (Eds.), Moore’s paradox: New essays on belief, rationality and the first person (pp. 53–75). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dretske, F. (1988). Explaining behavior. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Frankfurt, H. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. The Journal of Philosophy, 68(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gigerenzer, G. (2005). I think, therefore I err. Social Research, 72(1), 195–218.Google Scholar
  9. Green, M. S. (2007). Moorean absurdity and showing what’s within. In M. S. Green & J. N. Williams (Eds.), Moore’s paradox: New essays on belief, rationality and the first person (pp. 189–214). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Green, M. S., & Williams, J. N. (Eds.). (2007). Moore’s paradox: New essays on belief, rationality and the first person. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Green, M. S., & Williams, J. N. (2011). Moore’s paradox, truth and accuracy. Acta Analytica, 26(3), 243–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Littlejohn, C. (2010). Moore's paradox and epistemic norms. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 88(1), 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marcus, R. (1990). Some revisionary proposals about belief and believing. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 50(supplemental volume), 133–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moore, G. E. (1942). A reply to my critics. In P. Schilpp (Ed.), The philosophy of G.E. Moore (pp. 535–667). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Moore, G. E. (1944). Russell’s theory of descriptions. In P. Schilpp (Ed.), The philosophy of Bertrand Russell (pp. 175–225). Evanston: Tudor.Google Scholar
  16. Nagel, T. (1979). The absurd. In T. Nagel (Ed.), Mortal questions (pp. 11–14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Nanamoli, B., & Bohhi, B. (1995). The middle length discourses of the Buddha: A translation of the Majjhima Nikaya (teachings of the Buddha). Somerville: Wisdom Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Outler, A. C. (Ed.). (2000). Confessions and enchiridion by St. Augustine. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.Google Scholar
  19. Platts, M. (1981). Moral reality and the end of desire. In M. Platts (Ed.), Reference, truth and reality (pp. 69–82). London: Routledge and Keagan Paul.Google Scholar
  20. Pruss, A. (2011). Does belief distribute over conjunction? http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.sg/2011/10/does-belief-distribute-over-conjunction.html. Accessed 29 March 2013.
  21. Schroeder, T. (2004). Three faces of desire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schueler, G. (1995). Desire: Its role in practical reason and the explanation of action. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Searle, J. (1992). The rediscovery of the mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Shoemaker, S. (1988). On knowing one’s own mind. Philosophical Perspectives, 2, 183–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith, M. (1994). The moral problem. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Sorensen, R. A. (1988). Blindspots. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  27. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extension versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wall, D. (2012). A Moorean paradox of desire. Philosophical Explorations, 15(1), 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Watson, G. (1982). Free agency. In G. Watson (Ed.), Free will (pp. 96–110). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Williams, B. (1981). Internal and external reasons. In B. Williams (Ed.), Moral luck (pp. 101–113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Williams, J. N. (1994). Moorean absurdity and the intentional “structure” of assertion. Analysis, 54(3), 160–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Williams, J. N. (2006). Wittgenstein, Moorean absurdity and its disappearance from speech. Synthese, 149(1), 225–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Williams, J. N. (2007). Moorean absurdity and iterated belief. Journal of Philosophical Research, 32, 145–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Williams, J. N. (2012). Moore’s paradox and the priority of belief thesis. Philosophical Studies. doi: 10.1007/s11098-012-9997-1.Google Scholar
  35. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social SciencesSingapore Management University178903Singapore

Personalised recommendations