Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 176, Issue 6, pp 1639–1666 | Cite as

On not getting out of bed

  • Samuel AsarnowEmail author
Article
  • 322 Downloads

Abstract

This morning I intended to get out of bed when my alarm went off. Hearing my alarm, I formed the intention to get up now. Yet, for a time, I remained in bed, irrationally lazy. It seems I irrationally failed to execute my intention. Such cases of execution failure (as I call it) pose a challenge for Mentalists about rationality, who believe that facts about rationality supervene on facts about the mind. For, this morning, my mind was in order; it was my (in)action that apparently made me irrational. What, then, should Mentalists say about the phenomenon of execution failure? The phenomenon of execution failure, and the puzzle it raises for Mentalists, have rarely been discussed. This paper addresses the puzzle in two parts. First, it argues (against John Broome) that execution failure is a real phenomenon. It is possible for agents to irrationally fail to act on their present-directed intentions. It follows that Mentalists in the philosophy of action must solve the puzzle of explaining what is irrational about cases of execution failure. Second, this paper begins the search for such a solution. It considers six possible resolutions to the puzzle, arguing that none is obviously the most attractive. These resolutions include a requirement of overall conative consistency, an appeal to the norm of intention consistency, a form of Volitionalism, an appeal to factive mental states, and a proposal due to Garrett Cullity, and a novel requirement of proper functioning.

Keywords

Action  Rationality Intention Execution failure Mentalism Supervenience Volitionalism Not getting out of bed 

Notes

Acknowledgements

For helpful conversations or written feedback, thanks to Arden Ali, Facundo Alonso, Paul Boswell, Michael Bratman, Sarah Buss, Luis Cheng-Guajardo, Eugene Chislenko, Jamie Dreier, Daniel Y. Elstein, Geoff Gorham, Abraham Graber, R.J. Leland, Carlos Núñez, Grant Rozeboom, Daniel Speak, David Taylor, an extremely helpful anonymous referee for Philosophical Studies, and an audience at the 2017 Pacific APA.

References

  1. Adams, F. (1986). Intention and intentional action: The simple view. Mind and Language, I(4), 281–301.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, F., & Mele, A. R. (1992). The intention/volition debate. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 22(3), 323–337.Google Scholar
  3. Arpaly, N. (2003). Unprincipled virtue. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Arpaly, N., & Schroeder, T. (2014). In praise of desire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ashwell, L. (2010). Superficial dispositionalism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 88(4), 635–653.Google Scholar
  6. Bird, A. (1998). Dispositions and antidotes. The Philosophical Quarterly, 2(9), 350–355.Google Scholar
  7. Bishop, J. (1989). Natural agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Boyle, M., & Lavin, D. (2010). Goodness and Desire. In S. Tenenbaum (Ed.), Desire, practical reason, and the good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bratman, M. E. (1987). Intention, plans, and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bratman, M. E. (2009a). Intention, belief, and instrumental rationality. In D. Sobel & S. Wall (Eds.), Reasons for action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bratman, M. E. (2009b). Intention, practical rationality, and self-governance. Ethics, 119(3), 411–443.Google Scholar
  12. Bratman, M. E. (2009c). Intention, belief, practical, theoretical. In S. Robertson (Ed.), Spheres of reason. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Broome, J. (2008). Reply to Southwood, Kearns and Star, and Cullity. Ethics, 119(1), 96–108.Google Scholar
  14. Broome, J. (2013). Rationality through reasoning. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Broome, J. (2015). Replies. Teorema, XXXIV(2), 191–209.Google Scholar
  16. Chislenko, E. (2016). A solution for Buridan’s ass. Ethics, 126(2), 283–310.Google Scholar
  17. Choi, S. (2005). Do categorical ascriptions entail counterfactual conditionals? The Philosophical Quarterly, 55(220), 495–503.Google Scholar
  18. Choi, S. (2011). What is a dispositional masker? Mind, 120(480), 1159–1171.Google Scholar
  19. Choi, S. (2013). Can opposing dispositions be co-instantiated? Erkenntnis, 78(1), 161–182.Google Scholar
  20. Clarke, R. (2008). Intrinsic finks. The Philosophical Quarterly, 58(232), 512–518.Google Scholar
  21. Clarke, R. (2010). Opposing powers. Philosophical Studies, 149(2), 153–160.Google Scholar
  22. Conee, E. (2004). Externalism, internalism, and skepticism. Philosophical Issues, 14(1), 78–90.Google Scholar
  23. Conee, E. (2007). Externally enhanced internalism. In S. C. Goldman (Ed.), Internalism and externalism in semantics and epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Conee, E., & Feldman, R. (2001). Internalism defended. American Philosophical Quarterly, 38(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  25. Cullity, G. (2008). Decisions, reasons, and rationality. Ethics, 119(1), 57–95.Google Scholar
  26. Cullity, G. (2016). Describing rationality. Philosophical Studies, 173(12), 3399–3411.Google Scholar
  27. Danto, A. C. (1965). Basic actions. American Philosophical Quarterly, 2(2), 141–148.Google Scholar
  28. Davidson, D. (1980a). How is weakness of the will possible? In Essays on actions and events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Davidson, D. (1980b). Mental events. In Essays on actions and events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Del Corral, M. (2013). Against normative judgement internalism. Organon F, 20(4), 567–587.Google Scholar
  31. Del Corral, M. (2015). Diachronic requirements on practical commitments. Teorema, XXXIV(2), 141–151.Google Scholar
  32. Dodd, D. (2009). Weakness of will as intention-violation. European Journal of Philosophy, 17(1), 45–59.Google Scholar
  33. Fara, M. (2008). Masked abilities and compatibilism. Mind, 117(468), 843–863.Google Scholar
  34. Foot, P. (2001). Natural goodness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Frankfurt, H. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. The Journal of Philosophy, 68(1), 5–20.Google Scholar
  36. Ginet, C. (1980). The conditional analysis of freedom. In Peter van Inwagen (Ed.), Time and cause: Essays presented to Richard Taylor. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Ginet, C. (1990). On action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Ginet, C. (2004). Trying to act. In J. Campbell, M. O’Rourke, & D. Shier (Eds.), Freedom and determinism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Handfield, T. (2008). Unfinkable dispositions. Synthese, 160, 297–308.Google Scholar
  40. Harman, G. (1976). Practical reasoning. The Review of Metaphysics, 29(3), 431–463.Google Scholar
  41. Hinchman, E. S. (2009). Receptivity and the will. Nous, 43(3), 395–427.Google Scholar
  42. Holton, R. (2009). Willing, wanting, waiting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Hornsby, J. (1995). Reasons for trying. Journal of Philosophical Research, 20, 525–539.Google Scholar
  44. James, W. (1950). The principles of psychology (Vol. 2). Mineola, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
  45. Johnston, M. (1992). How to speak of the colors. Philosophical Studies, 89(2), 261–282.Google Scholar
  46. Knobe, J. (2003). Intentional action and side-effects in ordinary language. Analysis, 63, 190–193.Google Scholar
  47. Kolodny, N. (2008). The myth of practical consistency. European Journal of Philosophy, 16(3), 366–402.Google Scholar
  48. Korsgaard, C. M. (2008a). The constitution of agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Korsgaard, C. M. (2008b). The normativity of instrumental reason. In The constitution of agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Kratzer, A. (1977). What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1(3):337-355Google Scholar
  51. Lavin, D. (2013). Must there be basic action? Noûs, 47(2), 273–301.Google Scholar
  52. Lawrence, G. (1998). The rationality of morality. In R. Hursthouse, G. Lawrence, & W. Quinn (Eds.), Virtues and reasons: Philippa foot and moral theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Lewis, D. K. (1997). Finkish dispositions. The Philosophical Quarterly, 47(187), 143–158.Google Scholar
  54. Loar, B. (1981). Mind and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Maier, J. (2018). Ability, modality, and genericity. Philosophical Studies, 175(2), 411–428.Google Scholar
  56. Manley, D., & Wasserman, R. (2008). On linking dispositions and conditionals. Mind, 117(465), 59–84.Google Scholar
  57. Martin, C. B. (1994). Dispositions and conditionals. The Philosophical Quarterly, 42(169), 403–419.Google Scholar
  58. McCann, H. J. (1972). Is raising one’s arm a basic action? The Journal of Philosophy, 69(9), 235–249.Google Scholar
  59. McCann, H. J. (1974). Volition and basic action. The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 451–473.Google Scholar
  60. McCann, H. J. (1975). Trying, paralysis, and volition. The Review of Metaphysics, 28(3), 423–442.Google Scholar
  61. McCann, H. J. (1991). Settled objectives and rational constraints. American Philosophical Quarterly, 28(1), 25–36.Google Scholar
  62. McDowell, J. (1981). Noncognitivism and rule-following. In C. Leich & S. Holtzman (Eds.), Wittgenstein: To follow a rule. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  63. Mele, A. R. (1987). Irrationality: An essay on Akrasia. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Mele, A. R. (1992a). Recent work on intentional action. American Philosophical Quarterly, 29(3), 199–217.Google Scholar
  65. Mele, A. R. (1992b). Springs of action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Mele, A. R. (2014). The Single Phenomenon view and experimental philosophy. In G. Yaffe & M. Vargas (Eds.), Rational and social agency: The philosophy of Michael Bratman. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Mele, A. R., & Moser, P. K. (1994). Intentional action. Nous, 28(1), 39–68.Google Scholar
  68. Mele, A. R., & Sverdlik, S. (1996). Intention, intentional action, and moral responsibility. Philosophical Studies, 82(3), 265–287.Google Scholar
  69. O’Brien, L. (2010). Self-knowing agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. O’Brien, L. (2017). Actions as prime. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 80, 265–285.Google Scholar
  71. O’Shaughnessy, B. (1973). Trying (as the mental ‘pineal gland’). The Journal of Philosophy, 73(13), 365–386.Google Scholar
  72. O’Shaughnessy, B. (2008). The will: A dual aspect theory (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Paul, S. K. (2009). How we know what we’re doing. Philosophers’ Imprint, 9(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  74. Paul, S. K. (2013). The conclusion of practical reasoning: The shadow between idea and act. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 43(3), 287–302.Google Scholar
  75. Podgorski, A. (2017). Rational delay. Philosophers Imprint17(5), 1–36.Google Scholar
  76. Raz, J. (2005). The myth of instrumental rationality. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 1(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
  77. Rödl, S. (2007). Self-consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Rorty, A. O. (1980). Where does the akratic break take place? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 58(94), 333–346.Google Scholar
  79. Ruben, D.-H. (2016). A conditional theory of trying. Philosophical Studies, 173(1), 271–287.Google Scholar
  80. Rupert, R. D. (2008). Ceteris paribus laws, component forces, and the nature of special-science properties. Nous, 42(3), 349–380.Google Scholar
  81. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. New York: Barnes and Noble.Google Scholar
  82. Schroeder, S. (2001). The concept of trying. Philosophical Investigations, 24(3), 301–313.Google Scholar
  83. Schroeder, T. (2003). Donald Davidson’s theory of mind is non-normative. Philosophers’ Imprint 3(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  84. Schroeder, M. (2004). The scope of instrumental reason. Philosophical Perspectives, 18, 337–364.Google Scholar
  85. Schwitzgebel, E. (2002). A phenomenal, dispositional account of belief. Nous, 36(2), 249–275.Google Scholar
  86. Searle, J. R. (2001). Rationality in action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  87. Setiya, K. (2007). Cognitivism about instrumental reason. Ethics, 117(4), 649–673.Google Scholar
  88. Shah, N. (2003). How truth governs belief. The Philosophical Review, 112(4), 447–482.Google Scholar
  89. Shah, N., & Velleman, J. D. (2005). Doxastic deliberation. The Philosophical Review, 114(4), 497–534.Google Scholar
  90. Smith, M. (1994). The moral problem. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  91. Stuchlik, J. (2013). From volitionalism to the dual aspect theory of action. Philosophia, 41(3), 867–886.Google Scholar
  92. Sverdlik, S. (1996). Consistency among Intentions and the ‘Simple View’. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 26(4), 515–522.Google Scholar
  93. Tenenbaum, S. (2007). The conclusion of practical reason. In S. Tenenbaum (Ed.), Moral psychology. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  94. Thompson, M. (2008). Life and action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Velleman, J. D. (1989). Practical reflection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Velleman, J. D. (Ed.). (2000). On the aim of belief. In The possibility of practical reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Wallace, R. J. (1999). Addiction as defect of the will: Some philosophical reflections. Law and Philosophy, 18(6), 655–684.Google Scholar
  98. Wallace, R. J. (2001). Normativity, commitment, and instrumental reason. Philosophers’ Imprint, 1(3), 1–26.Google Scholar
  99. Wedgwood, R. (2007). Normativism defended. In B. McLaughlin, J. Cohen (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Mind. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  100. Wedgwood, R. (2017). The value of rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  101. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Williamson, T. (2017). Acting on knowledge. In J. A. Carter, E. Gordon, & B. Jarvis (Eds.), Knowledge-first: Approaches to epistemology and mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  103. Yaffe, G. (2010). Attempts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Zhu, J. (2004). Understanding volition. Philosophical Psychology, 17, 247–273.Google Scholar
  105. Zhu, Jing. (2010). On the principle of intention agglomeration. Synthese, 175(1), 89–99.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMacalester CollegeSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations