A question-sensitive theory of intention

Journal article


Beddor, Bob and Goldstein, Simon. (2023). A question-sensitive theory of intention. The Philosophical Quarterly. 73(2), pp. 346-378. https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqac031
AuthorsBeddor, Bob and Goldstein, Simon
Abstract

This paper develops a question-sensitive theory of intention. We show that this theory explains some puzzling closure properties of intention. In particular, it can be used to explain why one is rationally required to intend the means to one’s ends, even though one is not rationally required to intend all the foreseen consequences of one’s intended actions. It also explains why rational intention is not always closed under logical implication, and why one can only intend outcomes that one believes to be under one’s control.

Keywordsintention; propositional attitudes; closure; question-sensitivity; doctrine of double effect
Year2023
JournalThe Philosophical Quarterly
Journal citation73 (2), pp. 346-378
PublisherOxford University Press
ISSN0031-8094
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqac031
Scopus EID2-s2.0-85153476345
Web address (URL)https://academic.oup.com/pq/article/73/2/346/6648921
Open accessPublished as non-open access
Research or scholarlyResearch
Page range346-378
Publisher's version
License
All rights reserved
File Access Level
Controlled
Output statusPublished
Publication dates
Online22 Jul 2022
Publication process dates
AcceptedJul 2022
Deposited03 Jun 2024
Additional information

© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Scots Philosophical Association and the University of St Andrews. All rights reserved.

Permalink -

https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/item/909x3/a-question-sensitive-theory-of-intention

Restricted files

Publisher's version

  • 9
    total views
  • 0
    total downloads
  • 1
    views this month
  • 0
    downloads this month
These values are for the period from 19th October 2020, when this repository was created.

Export as

Related outputs

Getting accurate about knowledge
Carter, Sam and Goldstein, Simon. (2023). Getting accurate about knowledge. Mind. 132(525), pp. 158-191. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzac009
Language agents reduce the risk of existential catastrophe
Goldstein, Simon and Kirk-Giannini, Cameron Domenico. (2023). Language agents reduce the risk of existential catastrophe. AI & Society. pp. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01748-4
Attitude verbs’ local context
Blumberg, Kyle and Goldstein, Simon. (2023). Attitude verbs’ local context. Linguistics and Philosophy. 46(3), pp. 483-507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-022-09373-y
Fragile knowledge
Goldstein, Simon. (2022). Fragile knowledge. Mind. 131(522), pp. 487-515. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzab040
Contextology
Goldstein, Simon and Kirk-Giannini, Cameron Domenico. (2022). Contextology. Philosophical Studies. 179(11), pp. 3187-3209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-022-01820-7
Sly Pete in dynamic semantics
Goldstein, Simon David. (2022). Sly Pete in dynamic semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic. 51(5), pp. 1103-1117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-022-09660-w
Knowledge from multiple experiences
Goldstein, Simon and Hawthorne, John. (2022). Knowledge from multiple experiences. Philosophical Studies. 179(4), pp. 1341-1372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-021-01710-4
Counterfactual contamination
Goldstein, Simon and Hawthorne, John. (2022). Counterfactual contamination. Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 100(2), pp. 262-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2021.1886129
Probability for epistemic modalities
Goldstein, Simon and Santorio, Paolo. (2021). Probability for epistemic modalities. Philosophers' Imprint. 21(33), pp. 1-37.
Mighty knowledge
Beddor, Bob and Goldstein, Simon. (2021). Mighty knowledge. Journal of Philosophy. 118(5), pp. 229-269. https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil2021118518
The normality of error
Carter, Sam and Goldstein, Simon. (2021). The normality of error. Philosophical Studies. 178, pp. 2509-2533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-020-01560-6
Losing confidence in luminosity
Goldstein, Simon and Waxman, Daniel. (2021). Losing confidence in luminosity. Noûs. 55(4), pp. 962-991. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12348
Epistemic modal credence
Goldstein, Simon. (2021). Epistemic modal credence. Philosophers' Imprint. 21(26), pp. 1-24.
The counterfactual direct argument
Goldstein, Simon. (2020). The counterfactual direct argument. Linguistics and Philosophy. 43(2), pp. 193-232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-019-09272-9
Free choice impossibilty results
Goldstein, Simon. (2020). Free choice impossibilty results. Journal of Philosophical Logic. 49(2), pp. 249-282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-019-09517-9
Conditional heresies
Cariani, Fabrizio and Goldstein, Simon. (2020). Conditional heresies. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 101(2), pp. 251-282. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12565
A theory of conditional assertion
Goldstein, Simon. (2019). A theory of conditional assertion. Journal of Philosophy. 116(6), pp. 293-318. https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil2019116620
Generalized update semantics
Goldstein, Simon. (2019). Generalized update semantics. Mind: A Quarterly review of philosophy. 128(511), pp. 795-835. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzy076
Free choice and homogeneity
Goldstein, Simon. (2019). Free choice and homogeneity. Semantics and Pragmatics. 12, pp. 1-47. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.23
Triviality results for probabilistic modals
Goldstein, Simon. (2019). Triviality results for probabilistic modals. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 99(1), pp. 188-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12477
A stronger doctrine of double effect
Bronner, Ben and Goldstein, Simon. (2018). A stronger doctrine of double effect. Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 96(4), pp. 793 - 805. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2017.1400572
Believing epistemic contradictions
Beddor, Bob and Goldstein, Simon. (2018). Believing epistemic contradictions. The Review of Symbolic Logic. 11(1), pp. 87-114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020316000514
A preface paradox for intention
Goldstein, Simon. (2016). A preface paradox for intention. Philosophers' Imprint. 16(14), pp. 1-20.