Desirism: Objections to Motivational Internalism

In yesterday's post I argued for the possibility of deriving 'ought' from 'is' by making 'ought' a hypothetical imperative. "You ought to do X" means that people generally have many and strong reasons to praise those who do X and condemn those who do not do X. The latter can be derived from 'is', so the former can be derived from 'is'.

One of the implications of this view is that it conflicts with the doctrine of motivational internalism.

Motivational internalism holds that if a person sincerely believes that X is wrong, then he is motivated not to do X. On some versions of internalism, this motivation may be overridden by other concerns, but it is always there.

A person can accept that people generally have many and strong reasons to condemn people who do X without at all being moved not to not do X. He can shrug his shoulders and say, "Eh, I don't care."

Consequently, desirism is inconsistent with motivational internalism.

The justification for motivational internalism comes from the observation that we never see a person change their moral judgment without changing their behavior. A person who changes her mind on capital punishment - who goes from thinking that capital punishment is obligatory to thinking that it is wrong - is expected to undergo a change in behavior as well. In fact, she is required to undergo a change in behavior - otherwise we doubt that she has actually changed her mind or, at best, she is pretending that she still holds her former views.

Motivational internalism explains this my making motivation a part of the meaning of moral terms. A person who says 'X is wrong' when not motivated to refrain from doing X has not learned to use moral terms correctly.

If we break it down, there are two major types of motivational internalism. Strong internalism states that if a person judges X to be wrong she has an overriding reason not to do X. Correspondingly, weak internalism holds that if a person judges X to be wrong then she has some aversion to doing X, but it can be overridden by other interests.

So, how can desirism explain the observations that seem to support internalism - the near perfect match between moral judgment and motivation?

First, when we are talking about something that people generally have many and strong reasons to condemn, we are almost always talking about something that the agent has many and strong reasons to condemn. The hit man still has reasons to encourage society to use condemnation to build in people generally an aversion to killing. The rapist who has any female friends whatsoever (or male friends who themselves has female friends) has reasons to promote condemnation of those who force sex on women without consent. We all have reasons to promote a general aversion to lying or to taking the property of others without consent.

Second, many of us have a desire to do the right thing. One way to get a person to refrain from lying is to give him an aversion to lying. Another way is to give him an aversion to doing that which is wrong and a belief that lying is wrong. We use both methods. Giving him a belief that lying is wrong is not sufficient to motivate him. However, it will motivate anybody with an aversion to doing that which is wrong - and the vast majority of us have that aversion.

Third, People generally have reason to avoid condemnation and punishment. Desirism identifies what is wrong with what people have reason to condemn or punish. Condemnation and punishment play on the reward system - they are inherently things that those condemned or punished have reasons to avoid. You cannot punish a kid by denying him permission to watch a television show he would never want to watch. Consequently, even the person who has no interest in avoiding that which is wrong has an interest in avoiding what others judge to be wrong. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, admitting that something is wrong implies admitting that others have reasons to condemn those who do X. People have many and strong reasons to deny that others have a reason to condemn or punish them.

Fourth, humans are great rationalizers. They tend to adopt propositions that they want to believe are true. Being motivated to perform an action implies being motivated to believe that the state that the action brings about or the act itself is good. This brings about a correspondence between what a person is motivated to do and what he is motivated to believe that does not depend on any type of necessary connection between the two.

These elements point to a pernicious implication of internalism - it's use in deflecting guilt.

Under intenalism, 'I have an obligation to do X' implies 'I am motivated to do X'

If this is true, then 'I am not motivated to do X' implies 'I have no obligation to do X'.

In other words, the following reasoning would be sound. "I am not at all moved by the plight of the sick and hungry. Therefore, I have no obligation to help them. I can test your moral claims by testing my motivation. If my motivation does not correspond to your claims, then your claims are false."

An answer to this may be, "Obligation does not depend on what you are motivated to do now, but on what you would be motivated to do if you had all of the relevant facts."

Still, this means that if a person knew all of the relevant facts about a poor and starving community and was indifferent to their fate, then the claim that he had an obligation to help would be false. It also means that if a person can cultivate an indifference to the plight of the poor in the face of knowing all of the facts, then he can rid himself of any obligation to help the poor.

Desirism holds that claim that one has an obligation would still be true, even if the agent had no interest in living up to that obligation. Desirism would says, "It may not be the case that you do not care, but you should care. By this we mean that people generally have many and strong reasons to make people care by praising those who care and condemning those who do not."

In other words, with desirism, moral claims do not concern what we ARE motivated to do. They are concerned with what we SHOULD BE motivated to do - and seek to use social tools such as praise and condemnation to cause people to have the motivations they should have.

Motivational internalism has a lot of people measuring what they should and should not do by measuring what the want to do or not do. They are concluding, in effect, "I am obligated to do what I want to do - what I find myself motivated to do - and prohibited from doing what I have no interest in doing."

This is a very convenient moral theory. It probably goes a long way towards explaining why it is so popular and so widely used. However, in this case, what is convenient for the ego of the agent is something other people still have reason to condemn - whether they want it to be or not.