Belief, reason, and motivation: Michael Smith's The moral problem

Abstract

Smith defends an analysis of moral rightness in terms of what we would want ourselves to do if we were fully rational. I argue that the theory rests on two unstable pillars: First is the familiar assumption that what we have reason to do is what we would desire to do if we were fully rational. I argue that this is false. Second is the “practicality requirement”, according to which a person who believes she is morally required to do something either is motivated to do it or is “practically irrational”. I argue that Smith’s defense of this is unsuccessful.