Advertisement

The Structure of Action

  • Daniel González Lagier
Chapter
  • 115 Downloads
Part of the Law and Philosophy Library book series (LAPS, volume 67)

Abstract

In the previous chapter, I concluded that it may be useful for solving the paradoxes of action, or at least for taking a new look at some of the problems that have come up in philosophy and in criminal-law doctrine, to distinguish three aspects of actions (giving rise to three different meanings of the term ‘action’). In this chapter, I will propose a framework that may be of use in the analysis of result-acts and consequence-acts. For that purpose, I will analyze some of the common elements we find in a great number of actions (if not in all of them) — for instance, in actions such as closing a window, killing another person, making a will, etc. — or, if you wish, in a great number of actions under a particular description (if one opts for a concept of action on the lines of Anscombe and Davidson).

Keywords

Bodily Movement Institutional Change Voluntary Action Intentional Action Natural Change 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Habermas 1988, vol. 1, p. 145.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The link is conceptual because the action is defined by that change.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cf. Searle 1969, pp. 50 ff.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    On the idea of institutional changes or results and their relationship to a certain kind of norms, cf. Atienza/ Ruiz Manero 1998, ch. II.3; also, Redondo 1999, ch. I.4.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Besides, the expression ‘within/beyond an agent’s control’ may be understood to refer either to any agent in normal conditions, or to some particular agent.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    For the theory of action, the logical notion of a sufficient condition is too strong because we can never be sure that a bodily movement will actually be sufficient to bring about a certain change (other than that of the bodily movement itself). There are at least two reasons for this: first, the inductive nature of our knowledge about causal relations; and second, the fact that we can never be absolutely sure that the causal context at a particular moment in time is exactly the right one for bringing about an intended change, because we are incapable of analyzing all the relevant variables. That is why it seems convenient to speak of conditions which (in the light of what we know and what be believe to be able to do) are reasonably sufficient. Cf. on this González Lagier 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Searle 1983, p. 80.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    For a summary of some theories of causality, cf. González Lagier 1994; on the idea of natural necessity, cf. von Wright 1971.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nagel 1961.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Joseph Raz has therefore criticized Searle’s distinction of regulative and constitutive rules. Cf. Raz 1990, pp. 108 ff.; also, González Lagier 1993.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    This encompasses the cases Alvin Goldman has called ‘simple generation’ and ‘augmentation generation’; cf. Chapter III, sect. 1.2.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mosterín 1983, p. 174.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Searle proposes to write Intentionality or Intentional, with a capital ‘I’, when we refer to the intentionality of mental states in general.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Searle 1983, p. 1.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    For a presentation of the problems posed by Intentionality and of different attempts to account for it, cf. Bechtel 1988, chs. 3 and 4.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cf., for example, Chapter IV, sect. 2.4.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Here, I closely follow Nino’s summary of the discussion, in Nino 1987, ch. III.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cf. Chapter IV, sect. 3.1.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Simpson 1985, p. 57.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bechtel 1988, ch. 5.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brodbeck 1968, p. 59.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Searle 1992, p. 35.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
    Moya 1990, pp. 136 and 137.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ibid., p. 136.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ibid., p. 137. However, that feature seems more controversial to me, because the greater or lesser disposition to change an intention could be seen as an indicator (among other things) of the intensity of my intention to do something.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ibid., p. 138.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ibid., p. 140.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Von Wright 1983a, p. 43.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Von Wright 1980, p. 54.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Davidson 1980d, p. 101.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ibid., p. 102.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Searle 1983, p. 85.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Moya 1990, p. 132.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Searle 1983, p. 85.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Which, as we have seen, is said to be the notion underlying the social theory of action of criminal-law doctrine as well as the ascriptive theory of H. L. A. Hart.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    White 1985, p. 72; White presents that thesis without adopting it himself.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nino 1987, p. 36.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wittgenstein 1958, § 621.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ogden/Richards 1923, pp. 186 f.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mardones 1991.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    The distinction between explanation and understanding is usually characterized in more suggestive, but at the same time more vague terms. I here adopt the distinction drawn by Georg Henrik von Wright. For von Wright, the difference between the two types of sciences should not be understood as based on the difference between ‘explaining’ and ‘understanding’, but between intentional or teleological explanation and understanding, on the part of the human sciences, and causal or functional explanation, on the part of the natural sciences. Cf. von Wright 1971, esp. the last chapter.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Elster 1983, p. 101.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mosterín 1983, pp. 182 and 186.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Von Wright 1971, p. 134.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ibid., pp. 132 ff.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bustos 1997, p. 294.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cf. Chapter V, sect. 1.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bustos 1997, p. 267.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ibid., p. 268.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    The plausibility of these presumptions derives, on the one hand, from our experience and, on the other, from the notion of intention (just as, according to von Wright, the fact that an intention implies a commitment to the corresponding action is due to the concept of intention itself). Cf. above, sect. 5.3.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Cf. Garcia Suárez 1997, p. 253.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Cf. ibid., pp. 278 ff.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    On these questions, cf. Chapter VI, sect. 1.4.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Guibourg 1987, pp. 49 ff.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ibid., p. 53.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Concerning non-intentional actions or consequence-acts, the only function of constitutive rules is that they facilitate the interpretation of the meaning of an action; but, in contrast to what is the case concerning resultacts, they do not have the function of allowing the agent intentionally to perform a new kind of action.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel González Lagier
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AlicanteAlicanteSpain

Personalised recommendations