Skip to main content

Pains of Perseverance: Agent-Centred Prerogatives, Burdens and the Limits of Human Motivation

Abstract

An important question in recent work in political philosophy concerns whether facts about individuals’ motivational deficiencies are facts to which principles of justice are sensitive. In this context, David Estlund has recently argued that the difficulties individuals’ face in motivating themselves to act do not affect the content of normative principles that apply to them. Against Estlund, the paper argues that in principle the motivational difficulties individuals face can affect the content of normative principles that apply to them. This argument is made with reference to so-called Agent-Centred Prerogatives. The paper argues that because the limits on human motivational capacities can affect the extent to which it is burdensome to do something, those limits also impact on the nature of justified Agent-Centred Prerogatives. If Agent-Centred Prerogatives to depart from a putative normative principle depend on the burdensomeness of complying with that requirement, human motivational capacities can affect which normative principles apply.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. This is a substantive claim inasmuch as it suggests a legitimate consideration with respect to the content of an ACP, however it does not entail any concrete claims with respect to the burdens motivational difficulties impose. To put it another way, the argument draws a connection between motivational difficulty and burdensomeness that, if it obtains, means that motivational difficulty constrains moral norms but this is compatible with the claim that, as a matter of fact, motivational difficulty does not characteristically impose burdens.

  2. Estlund takes the example from Jackson and Pargetter (1986: 233–255).

  3. It might be thought that the Professor’s inability to do anything other than procrastinate makes his a clinical case of the sort that makes the Professor genuinely unable to do the things the putative normative principle requires. However, this inability only renders the Professor unable to refrain from procrastinating, it does not render him unable to do those things that, through concentrated mental effort, he could do if he tried to.

  4. A further thread of discussion in Estlund’s paper suggests just such a line of resistance (Estlund 2012: 230–235).

  5. For an attempt to advance our understanding in this regard see Greenawalt (1984).

  6. I am grateful to Rob Jubb for first suggesting a point along these lines.

  7. In making this point I do not presuppose that accounts of moral reprehensibility must be drawn entirely independently of failures to be motivated towards putative normative requirements but that unless further reasons beyond something’s being a failure to be motivated towards a putative normative requirement are given for a trait being morally reprehensible then the question will be begged against the view that motivational failure can sometimes be non-reprehensible in a way that can in principle ground ACP.

  8. The argument is therefore consistent with G. A. Cohen’s contention that “a principle can reflect or respond to a fact only because it is also a response to a principle that is not a response to a fact.” (Cohen 2005: 214)

  9. Notice, moreover, that motivational difficulties do not themselves make it the case that some course of action is unreasonably demanding, but do so indirectly by affecting the extent to which a course of action is burdensome. In other words, the mere fact that something is motivationally difficult does not affect its demandingness, it is the impact of that motivational difficulty on burdens of performance that does so.

  10. The thesis here does not take a view on whether or not persons can be morally bad simply in virtue of character traits as opposed to their failure to satisfy normative requirements.

  11. Such a project might be to care for children that are (perhaps biologically) their own, rather than in a capacity as a state or collective carer.

  12. I use the language of goodness/badness here as opposed to permissibility/impermissibility given that the subject here is a state of being rather than an act.

References

  • Baron M (2005) Justifications and excuses. Ohio State J Crim Law 2:387–406, at pp. 389–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen GA (2005) Facts and principles. Philos Publ Aff 31:211–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen GA (2008) Rescuing justice and equality. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Estlund D (2008) Democratic authority: a philosophical framework. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Estlund D (2012) Human nature and the limits (if any) of political philosophy. Philos Publ Aff 39:207–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenawalt K (1984) The perplexing borders of justification and excuse. Colum L Rev 84:1897–1927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson F, Pargetter R (1986) Oughts, options, and actuality. Philos Rev 95:233–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan S (1984) Does consequentialism demand too much? Philos Publ Aff 13:239–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller D (2008) Political philosophy for earthlings. In: Leopold D, Stears M (eds) Political theory: methods and approaches. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 29–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel T (1986) The view from nowhere. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Plato, The Republic, trans. Allan Bloom. Harpercollins, bk. 5, lines 457c–d

  • Scheffler S (1982) The rejection of consequentialism. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheffler S (1992) Prerogatives without restrictions. Philos Perspect 6:377–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen A (2006) What do we want from a theory of justice? J Philos 103:215–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons AJ (2010) Ideal and non-ideal theory. Philos Publ Aff 38:5–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stemplowska Z (2008) What’s ideal about ideal theory? Soc Theory Pract 34:319–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swift A (2008) The value of philosophy in nonideal circumstances. Soc Theory Pract 34:336–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams B (1973) A critique of utilitarianism. In: Smart JCC, Williams B (eds) Utilitarianism for and against. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 108–118

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the two anonymous referees at Ethical Theory and Moral Practice for very helpful comments on an earlier draft of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gideon Elford.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Elford, G. Pains of Perseverance: Agent-Centred Prerogatives, Burdens and the Limits of Human Motivation. Ethic Theory Moral Prac 18, 501–514 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-014-9534-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-014-9534-8

Keywords

  • Agent-centred prerogatives
  • Ideal theory
  • Justice
  • Normative principles