Abstract
What is special about successful action explanation is that it reveals what the agent saw in her action. Most contemporary philosophers assume that this amounts to explanation in terms of the reason for which the agent acted. They also assume that such explanations conform to a realist picture of explanation. What is disputed is whether the reason is a psychological state (Psychologism) or a normative state of affairs (Anti-Psychologism). I argue that neither psychological states nor their contents suffice to make actions intelligible in the right way (such theories fail to meet what I call the Reasonableness Constraint), while Anti-Psychologism can’t explain acting on bad reasons (it fails the Bad Reasons Constraint). The alternative that I propose, Proceduralism, has it that explaining an action requires simulating the agent’s practical deliberation. On this view, explanation is not grounded in reasons, and thereby avoids the problems with “bad” reasons that Anti-Psychologism faces. Instead, in simulating to the same conclusion as the agent, the “explainer” comes to see what the agent saw in her action, thereby satisfying the Reasonableness Constraint. Proceduralism requires giving up on the assumption that the reason for which the agent acts explains the action and on the realist picture of action explanation. In addition, it accounts for the incomprehension that explainers experience when they encounter “alien” psychologies – psychologies that are deeply different from their own.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have