Resumo Nós nos concebemos como capazes de agir em resposta a razões normativas. Dado que razões normativas são fatos, essa autoimagem implica que somos capazes de agir em resposta a fatos. Argumentos a partir de casos de erro parecem nos forçar a deflacionar essa autoimagem pois eles parecem mostrar que agir à luz de um fato é apenas um modo de agir à luz de uma crença. Este artigo parte da recusa dessa tese deflacionária. De maneira a desarmar o argumento dos casos de erro, devemos adotar a tese do disjuntivismo de razões motivacionais. Segundo essa tese, há dois modos distintos de agir à luz de uma consideração: agir à luz de um fato ou agir à luz de uma crença. O disjuntivismo de razões, contudo, é alvo de um desafio cético calcado em uma concepção cognitivista da mente. Segundo essa concepção, a cognição deve ser explicada em termos da manipulação de representações e não há nenhuma diferença profunda entre decidir à luz de fatos e decidir à luz de crenças: em ambos os casos decidimos à luz de representações. O objetivo do artigo é defender o disjuntivismo dessa objeção. Para tal, apelo à psicologia ecológica de Gibson. Sustento que a concepção ecológica de percepção permite sustentar que, no caso de ações guiadas por percepção, agimos à luz dos fatos eles mesmos (e não de representações desses fatos) e que a mesma abordagem ecológica pode ser estendida para dar conta de casos nos quais agimos à luz de fatos sensorialmente indisponíveis. crença deflacionária motivacionais consideração contudo mente crenças objeção tal Gibson indisponíveis

Abstract We conceive of ourselves as capable of acting in response to normative reasons. Given that normative reasons are facts, this self-conception entails that we are capable of acting in response to facts. Arguments from error cases might seem to force us to deflate this self-conception, for they seem to show that to act in light of a fact must simply be a way of acting in light of a belief. The starting point of this paper is the rejection of this deflationary view. In order to reject the argument from error cases, we should adopt a disjunctive view of motivating reasons. According to this view there are two distinct ways of acting in light of a consideration: acting in light of a fact and acting in light of a belief. Disjunctivism about motivating reasons, however, is the target of a skeptical challenge grounded in a cognitivist account of the mind. According to this account, cognition is to explained in terms of the manipulation of representations and there is no meaningful difference between acting in light of a fact and acting in light of a belief: in both cases, one decides in light of a representation. The goal of this paper is to defend disjunctivism from this objection. In order to do so I appeal to Gibson’s ecological psychology. I argue that the ecological account of perception allows us to hold that in the case of actions guided by perception we act in light of the facts themselves (not representations of those facts) and that the same approach can be extended to cover cases in which we act in light of sensorily unavailable facts. selfconception self conception selfconception, conception, belief consideration however mind representation objection Gibsons Gibson s psychology not

RESUMO É comumente sustentado que os fins visados por uma ação são especificados pelos pares atitude/crença à luz dos quais a ação parece atrativa para o agente. Eu argumento que a existência de casos de múltiplos incentivos (isto é, casos nos quais o agente tem mais de um incentivo para agir mas nos quais seu motivo corresponde a apenas um desses incentivos) mostra que essa tese é falsa. De maneira a dar conta desses casos devemos atribuir a agentes a capacidade de determinar ativamente os fins visados por suas ações. Refiro-me a essa capacidade como a “vontade” do agente. Agentes dotados de vontade são capazes não apenas de determinar seu próprio comportamento mas também seus motivos. Concluo que a existência de casos de incentivos múltiplos mostra que agentes têm essa capacidade.

ABSTRACT It is commonly held that the goals at which an action aims are specified by the pro-attitude/belief pairs in light of which the action seems appealing to the agent. I argue that the existence of multiple-incentives cases (i.e., cases in which the agent has more than one incentive to act but in which her motive corresponds to only one of these incentives) shows this thesis to be false. In order to account for such cases we have to ascribe to agents the capacity to actively determine the goals at which their actions aim. I refer to this capacity as the agent’s “will”. Agents endowed with a will are capable not only of determining their own behavior but also their motives. I conclude that the existence of multiple-incentives cases shows that agents have this capacity.

ABSTRACT Moral Naturalism is the view that moral judgments aim at describing moral facts and that these are ordinary garden-variety natural facts. Moral Naturalism has trouble accounting for the intuition that we cannot outsource moral judgments, i.e., we cannot ground a moral conviction that p on the fact that a reliable moral adviser holds that p. There have been, however, several attempts to explain this intuition away or to discredit the intuition pumps that bring it forward. I argue that moral naturalists are not in a position to deny this intuition. Moral Naturalism embodies a conception of the minimal conditions for someone to qualify as capable of making moral judgments; among these conditions is the acknowledgment of the supervenience of the moral on the non-moral; given the naturalist's conception of what it takes for someone to be capable of moral judgment, if we allow agents to outsource their moral judgments we come to situations in which the convictions of moral agents do not comply with the acknowledgment of moral supervenience. The naturalist must, therefore, deny the possibility of moral outsourcing. Moral Naturalism, then, faces the problem of making sense of the ban on moral outsourcing.