Akrasia - stronger on dimension 1 but the second is...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Watson’s criticisms of Davidson Two aspects of desire: being motivated v. judging best Are these both aspects of desire? What makes the second look desire like? Humberstone’s distinctions In a television documentary about a beauty contest, the winner, newly crowned, wipes away the tears and says: I never realized how much I wanted to win. Presumably she was reflecting not on how much effort she had put in—she already knew that—but on how good it made her feel to have won. ‘Wanting, Getting, Having’ Desire is a cluster concept (cf. the notion of a game). A desire can be strong along three independent dimensions of assessment: 1. How strongly does it motivate you to act? 2. How happy would you be if it were satisfied? 3. How disappointed would you be if it were not satisfied? So, according to Humberstone, there can, for instance, be two desires, of which the first is
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: stronger on dimension 1, but the second is stronger on dimension 2. Likewise for dimensions 1 & 3,and for 2 & 3: Get job (p = .5) — very pleased Successfully cook complicated meal (p = .5) — reasonably pleased Unsuccessfully cook complicated meal (p = .5) — very disappointed Fail to get job (p = .5) — indifferent The dimensions are held together by normative principles (which can be violated) like: GO FOR IT: Make your efforts at satisfying desires proportionate to the extent to which you’d be happy to have them satisfied. Some more examples A colleague is offered an attractive job elsewhere. He decides, after much agonizing, to decline the offer. He explains that, as soon as he had made the decision, he realized that it was what he really wanted....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online