This paper defends Humeanism: the view that an agent has a reason for an intentional action if and only if it fulfills, or is a means to fulfilling, a current desire of that agent. Thomas Nagel presents an example involving a short-lived desire for eating a persimmon tomorrow. He claims that, contrary to Humeanism, this example is a clear case of irrationality. Furthermore, the Humean cannot simply dismiss all current desires with future objects, because desires of this sort are crucial to the Humean account of prudence. I respond that, correctly understood, Humeanism can simultaneously account for prudent conduct and other conduct motivated by present desires with future objects. © 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
CITATION STYLE
Maslen, C. (2002). A defense of Humeanism from Nagel’s persimmon. Erkenntnis. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020190012498
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.