Abstract
In this paper I argue that only a subset of the reason statementsWilliams defines as external must be rejected as false. `A has areason to φ' is necessarily false when the ends and aimsconstitutive of A's good close off the deliberative route from her S to the conclusion she has reason to φ. But when less important ends are at stake, it seems that a person's needs generally provide reasons for action, contrary to Williams's internalist account. I suspect, however, that there may remain inexorable disagreementover these claims because people value things in two distinct ways. Tosupport my suspicion, I explain how people's valuation can take either an agency-prioritizing or an end-prioritizing form. I then argue thatresolving the disagreement over Williams's internalist account ofreasons depends on whether it can be established that the agency-prioritizingform is the rationally superior form of valuation.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Korsgaard, C.M. (1986): ‘Skepticism about Practical Reason’, The Journal of Philosophy 83, 5–25.
Korsgaard, C.M. (1996): The Sources of Normativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McDowell, J. (1995): ‘Might There be External Reasons ’, in Ross Harrison and J.E. Altham (eds.), World, Mind, and Ethics: Essays on the Ethical Philosophy of Bernard Williams (pp. 68–85), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Millgram, E. (1996): ‘Williams' Argument Against External Reasons’, Noŭs 30, 197–220.
Smith, M. (1994): The Moral Problem, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Velleman, J.D. (1996): ‘The Possibility of Practical Reason’, Ethics 106, 694–726.
Williams, B. (1981): ‘Internal and External Reasons’, in Moral Luck (pp. 101–113), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, B. (1995a): ‘Internal Reasons and the Obscurity of Blame’, in Making Sense of Humanity (pp. 35–45), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, B. (1995b): ‘Reply to McDowell’, in World, Mind, and Ethics (pp. 186–194).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shelton, M. What Is Wrong with External Reasons?. Philosophical Studies 117, 365–394 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PHIL.0000016486.72851.98
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PHIL.0000016486.72851.98