Being realistic about motivation

Abstract

T.M. Scanlon's 'reasons fundamentalism' is thought to face difficulties answering the normative question—that is, explaining why it's irrational to not do what you judge yourself to have most reason to do. I argue that this difficulty results from Scanlon's failure to provide a theory of mind that can give substance to his account of normative judgment and its tie to motivation. A central aim of this paper is to address that deficiency. To do this, I draw on broadly cognitivist theories of emotion (those of, e.g., Martha Nussbaum and Robert Roberts). These theories are interesting because they view emotions as cognitive states from which motivation emerges. Thus, they provide a model Scanlon can use to develop a richer account of both the judgment-motivation connection and the irrationality of not doing what you judge yourself to have most reason to do. However, the success on this front is only partial—even this more developed proposal fails to give a satisfactory answer to the normative question.