Skip to main content

Intention and Practical Inference

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Synthese Library ((SYLI,volume 72))

Abstract

According to Professor von Wright, a sharp methodological division exists between the science of natural phenomena and the study of human action. Natural phenomena are explained, and predicted, on the causal model: to explain a natural event is to specify its cause, and such an explanation is thought to yield predictions for similar events. One modern form of this causal approach, according to von Wright, is the so-called deductive-nomological model of explanation: to explain an event is to subsume it under a law. Human actions, on the other hand, are held to be subject to a wholly different methodology of investigation. Von Wright argues, vigorously and often persuasively, that the correct model of understanding actions is not the causal-nomic model, but rather the following fundamental schema of practical inference:1

  • A intends to bring about p.

  • A considers that he cannot bring about p unless he does a.

  • Therefore, A sets himself to do a.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. G. H. von Wright, Explanation and Understanding (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y., 1971), p. 96. Hereafter we will refer to this work by citing page numbers in the body of the text.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See, e.g., Roderick M. Chisholm, ‘Freedom and Action’, in Keith Lehrer (ed.), Freedom and Determinism (Random House, New York, 1966).

    Google Scholar 

  3. See Donald Davidson, ‘Actions, Reasons, and Causes’, Journal of Philosophy 60(1963), 685-700.

    Google Scholar 

  4. I am assuming here that the relation of entailment or implication can be explained in an adequate way for events, actions, and the like — or, at least, that such talk is an oblique way of talking about their descriptions.

    Google Scholar 

  5. For a somewhat more detailed discussion of counterfactuals and determinative relationships, see my ‘Noncausal Connections’, Nous 8 (1974), 41-52. Also see David Lewis, ‘Causation’, Journal of Philosophy 70 (1973), 217-36.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See Lewis, ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  7. For example, see Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, Bk. III, ch. 3, and of course Kant, who says, “Whoever wills the end wills also (so far as reason decides his conduct) the means in his power which are indispensably necessary thereto. This proposition is, as regards the volition, analytic…,” Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, sec. 2 (tr. by Thomas K. Abbott).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Alvin I. Goldman, A Theory of Human Action (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1970), p. 102.

    Google Scholar 

  9. For a more detailed discussion of cases like this, see Jack W. Meiland, The Nature of Intentions (Methuen, London, 1970), ch. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  10. This was Professor von Wright’s reply in a conversation with me.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Glanville L. Williams, The Mental Element in Crime (Hebrew University Press, Jerusalem, 1965), p. 51.

    Google Scholar 

  12. For a useful discussion of conditional intentions, see Meiland, op. cit., ch. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  13. For possible notions of ‘action plan’, see G. E. Miller, E. Galanter, and K. Pribram, Plans and the Structure of Behavior (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1960), and Goldman, op. cit., esp. pp. 56-62.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cf. Miller, Galanter and Pribram, op. cit., p. 61

    Google Scholar 

  15. What does it mean when an ordinary man has an ordinary intention? It means that he has begun the execution of a Plan and that this intended action is a part of it. ‘I intend to see Jones when I get there’ means that I am already committed to the execution of a Plan for traveling and that a part of this Plan involves seeing Jones.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1976 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kim, J. (1976). Intention and Practical Inference. In: Manninen, J., Tuomela, R. (eds) Essays on Explanation and Understanding. Synthese Library, vol 72. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1823-4_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1823-4_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-1825-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-010-1823-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics