Abstract
Abstract The Resolution Argument purports to show that we are able to fully resolve our wills in cases of practical conflict only if we come to wholeheartedly identify with one of the conflicting motives (as well as the course of action that that motive rationalizes). The reason for this is that in the absence of wholehearted resolution with respect to one of our conflicting motives, the motive that in fact moves us to act lacks normative or action-guiding authority. So because the ambivalent agent acts on a motive that lacks normative authority, she is not autonomous. Against this argument, the chapter argues that resolution of the sort that is necessary for autonomy only requires agents to be normatively competent. Ambivalence does not preclude normative competence, so it poses no threat for autonomy.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
