Moral Judgment,Understanding And Motivation:Anti-Humean Internalism

Does agent’s making moral judgments,necessarily generate motivation?Whether the resulting motivation depends on non-cognitive states such as desire? The debate between Internal-Externalism of Moral Motivation and Humean-Anti-Humean of nature of motivation has aroused intense discussion in metaethics,philosophy of action and moral psychology.This paper presents a new scheme to defend both AntiHumean and Moral Motivational Internalism.To defend these two positions,we need to solve the two difficult problems:amoralism and listlessness,to answer two questions: what does is really mean to make moral judgments and what is the sufficient and necessary conditions for motivation.Non-Cognitivism and Cognitivism either fail to provide independent arguments or fail to show the difference between moral judgments and non-moral judgments.The previous Anti-Humean theory failed to solve the challenge of listlessness,and turned to Externalism.Non-Cognitivism’s solution depends on motivation of Humean theory.Smith constructed two arguments against Externalism: Motivation Tracking and Moral Fetishism.But neither he nor Externalism clarifies the essence of this two arguments.This paper creatively interprets “Moral Fetishism” as the Non-Transparency Limitation of Moral Motivation,and “Motivation Tracking” as Normative Requirement of Motivation.With these two “scaffoldings” as clues,we can analyze InternalismExternalism of Moral Motivation,and Humean-Anti-Humean.In conclusion,de re Externalism violates the Non-Transparency Limitation;de dicto Externalism violates the Motivation Tracking;Smith’s Requirement of Practicality also violates the NonTransparency Limitation,it’s no better than Externalism;Humean is unable to undertake the heavy task of integrating Non-Transparency Limitation with Normative Requirement,Williams’ s deliberative theory is the closest success;Anti-Humean of Nagel and Kosgaard violate Non-Transparency Limitation;Anti-Humean of Kant and Scanlon do not address motivational efficacy.Mc Dowell’s special way of looking,Grimm’s representational structure and Lynch’s creative act provide theoretical resources for my new scheme.People with listlessness are not motivated because they don’t understand the judgment,they don’t really make the judgment.Understanding is fundamentally to create structure of mind.Distinguishing semantic level,symbol level and physical level.Creating structure of mind belongs to symbol level,Creating structure of mind is to create symbol device and encoding form.Under the framework of Computationism.It’s difficult for the semantic level to constrain the symbolic level only by semantic rules.To constrain the symbolic layer semantic rules must be translated into symbolic rules.This is compatible with Non-Transparency Limitation and Normative Requirement.Since creating structure of mind requires a normal,even exceptional state of mind,agent with listlessness don’t really make judgment.Since the amoralist has created structure of mind with the use and knowledge of moral words,so he is motivated,he really makes judgments.But since his structure of mind don’t involve agent,not in a moral sense,so he doesn’t really make moral judgment.Conceptual analysis at the philosophical level helps to clear up the questions raised by cognitive science.Since the processing mechanism of moral judgment has not been summarized at present,it is uncertain whether VM patients really make moral judgments.And since the normal operation of the processing mechanism of moral judgment is premised on the normal operation of the processing mechanism of somatic mark,it is difficult for VM patients to really make moral judgments,and it is difficult to constitute a counterexample of Internalism of Moral Motivation.