| In this paper I offer a defense of reasons-internalism, which is the view that all of our reasons for action are dependent on our motivations. The rival to this view is reasons-externalism, which claims that some of our reasons for action are not dependent on our motivations. My defense of internalism begins by discussing and ultimately rejecting David Velleman's claim that the debate between internalism and externalism rests on a false dichotomy. From here I consider multiple objections to internalism, as well as multiple arguments for externalism, and argue that they do not constitute good grounds for rejecting internalism. After defending internalism against these objections and externalist arguments, I go on the offensive and offer an argument in favor of internalism. I conclude that internalism is an attractive, philosophically defensible position. |
