Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 487–503 | Cite as

The Normative Requirement of Means-End Rationality and Modest Bootstrapping

  • Luis Cheng-Guajardo


“Myth theorists” have recently called the normative requirement of means-end rationality into question. I show that we can accept certain lessons from the Myth Theorists and also salvage our intuition that there is a normative requirement of means-end rationality. I argue that any appeal to a requirement to make our attitudes coherent as such is superfluous and unnecessary in order to vindicate the requirement of means-end rationality and also avoid the problematic conclusion that persons ought to take the means to whatever ends they happen to intend.


Practical rationality Instrumental rationality Autonomy Bootstrapping 



I am especially grateful to Tamar Schapiro for her time and many discussions. I would also like to thank Michael Bratman, Luca Ferrero, Paul Hurley, Nadeem Hussain, and Niko Kolodny for helpful discussions. An early version of this paper was presented to an audience at the 2011 Pacific Division Meeting of the American Philosophical Association, and two Referees of this journal also provided valuable comments on previous drafts. Part of the research for this paper was undertaken while I was a Geballe Fellow in residence at the Stanford Humanities Center.


  1. Bratman M (1987) Intention, plans, and practical reason. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Bratman M (2009a) Intention, belief, and instrumental rationality. In: Sobel D, Wall S (eds) Reasons for action. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 13–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bratman M (2009b) Intention, practical rationality and self-governance. Ethics 119(3):411–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Broome J (1999) Normative requirements. Ratio 12:398–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broome J (2005a) Does rationality give us reasons? Phil Issues 15:321–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broome J (2005b) Have we reason to do as rationality requires? - a comment on Raz. J Ethics Soc Philos Symp 1:1–9Google Scholar
  7. Broome J (2009) The unity of reasoning? In: Robertson S (ed) Spheres of reason. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 62–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Martinich A (ed) The philosophy of language, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 165–175Google Scholar
  9. Kagan S (1991) The limits of morality. Oxford ethics series. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Kolodny N (2005) Why be rational? Mind 114:509–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kolodny N (2008a) The myth of practical consistency. Eur J Philos 16(3):366–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kolodny N (2008b) Why be disposed to be coherent? Ethics 118(3):437–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kolodny N, MacFarlane J (2010) Ifs and oughts. J Philos 107(3):115–143Google Scholar
  14. Korsgaard CM (1997) The normativity of instrumental reason. In: Cullity G, Gaut BN (eds) Ethics and practical reason. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 215–254Google Scholar
  15. Korsgaard CM (2009) Self-constitution : Agency, identity, and integrity. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Raz J (1975a) Practical reason and norms. Hutchinson university library. Philosophy, Hutchinson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Raz J (1975b) Reasons for action, decision and norms. Mind 84(336):481–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Raz J (1999) Explaining normativity: On rationality and the justification of reason. In: Raz (ed) Engaging reason: On the theory of value and action. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 67–89Google Scholar
  19. Raz J (2005a) Instrumental rationality: a reprise. J Ethics Soc Philos Symp 1:1–19Google Scholar
  20. Raz J (2005b) The myth of instrumental rationality. J Ethics Soc Philos 1(1):2–28Google Scholar
  21. Raz J (2011) From normativity to responsibility. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schroeder M (2004) The scope of instrumental reason. Philos Perspect 18:337–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schroeder M (2005) Instrumental mythology. J Ethics Soc Philos 1(1)Google Scholar
  24. Schroeder M (2011) Ought, agents, and actions. Philos Rev 120(1):1–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Setiya K (2007) Cognitivism about instrumental reason. Ethics 117(4):649–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wallace RJ (2006) Normativity, commitment, and instrumental reason & postscript. In: Wallace (ed) Normativity and the will: Selected papers on moral psychology and practical reason. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 82–120Google Scholar
  27. Wedgwood R (2006) The meaning of ‘ought’. In: Shafer-Landau R (ed) Oxford studies in metaethics, vol 23. vol 1. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 127–160Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations