Abstract

Ethical internalism is a view that links an agent's reasons to be moral with his or her motivation to be moral. At least two kinds of ethical internalism can be distinguished. "Socratic" ethical internalism is the view that an agent cannot think he has a moral reason to perform some action unless he has some motivation so to act. "Humean" ethical internalism is the view that moral reasons give genuine reasons for acting only when the action serves one of the agent's desires or other "motivating" attitudes. I argue that neither Socractic nor Humean internalism is defensible. ;The central difficulty with Socratic internalism is that, if it can be tested at all, it involves the ascription of a desire, on the part of all competent agents, not to act immorally. But I argue that this "desire thesis" is itself unverifiable, so that the Socratic internalist thesis cannot be tested. These criticisms are applied to the views of R. M. Hare, H. A. Prichard, and Thomas Nagel. ;On the other hand, the Humean internalist, I argue, generally overstates the ability of agents to perceive and evaluate their own reasons for acting. This leads the Humean internalist wrongly to downplay the role of an agent's interests in determining his or her reasons for acting. I show how the views of the Humean internalist conflict with common-sense views about the ascription of reasons for acting, and apply the criticisms to the works of Philippa Foot, Bernard Williams, and Gilbert Harman. ;Finally, I develop an "externalist" account of reasons for acting. According of this account, the reasons properly ascribable to an agent do not depend in any essential way on the motivating attitudes that are ascribed to an agent. I argue that the externalist account best accords with our intuitions about the ascription of reasons for acting. And I conclude by examining the possibility of using the externalist account of reasons to justify the imposition of legal liability on agents