Jonathan Dancy, in his 1994 Aristotelian Society Presidential Address, set out to show 'why there is really no such thing as the theory of motivation'. In this paper I want to agree that there is no such thing, and to offer reasons of a different kind for that conclusion. I shall suggest that the so-called ‘theory of motivation’ misconstrues the question which it purports to answer, and that when we properly analyse the question and distinguish it clearly from other questions with which it should not be confused, we do not need a theory of motivation at all.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- J.E.J. Attham and R. Harrison, eds., World, Mind, and Ethics, Cambridge, 1995.Google Scholar
- J. Dancy, Why There Is Really No Such Thing as the Theory of Motivation, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. XCV, 1995, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
- E. Garrard and D. McNaughton, Mapping Moral Motivation, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 1, 1998, pp. 45–59.Google Scholar
- J.L. Mackie, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Harmondsworth, 1977.Google Scholar
- J. McDowell, Might There be External Reasons?, in Altham and Harrison (eds), World, Mind, and Ethics.Google Scholar
- R. Norman, Public Reasons and the ‘Private Language’ Argument, Philosophical Investigations vol. 23, 2000, pp. 292–314.Google Scholar
- D. Parfit, Reasons and Motivation, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 71, 1997, pp. 99–130.Google Scholar
- J. Tanney, Why Reasons May Not be Causes, Mind and Language vol. 10, 1995 pp. 105–128.Google Scholar
- B. Williams, Moral Luck, Cambridge, 1981.Google Scholar
- B. Williams, Making Sense of Humanity, Cambridge, 1995.Google Scholar