| Summary: | In the article, the author attempts to compare and confront Daniel Wegner's idea of a conscious will with the selected ethic doctrines in the context of relationship between intention and the moral evaluation of an action. According to the utilitarian doctrine, when one evaluates an action intention should not be considered because only the results of an action are relevant. On the other hand, Kant and the ethics of love for fellowmen claim that intention is a direct cause of action, therefore, it is intention that should really be evaluated. On the basis of Wegner's model of a conscious will, one may state that an utilitarian attitude is more justified in many causes. In the act of volition, intention serves only as a commentary, rather than as a cause (as it is commonly believed). In Wegner's opinion the main role of intention is to explain action in the context of the plans, desires and beliefs of an agent. It is all due to the fact that in social interactions, one should always have the ability to explain one's own behavior: ignorance of the causes of one's behavior is inadmissible in this context (odium of insane action). Moreover, when intention and action match, a specific kind of feeling - phenomenal will - is added to the act of volition. This particular feeling not only strengthens the relationship between intention and action. but it also helps the agent to distinguish his own actions from other actions of other agents. It means that the ultimate form of intention may be completely different from the actual causes of a particular type of behavior.To conclude, due to Wegner's work, the utilitarian doctrine gained strong support for the thesis that intention should not be considered during the moral evaluation of action.
|
|---|
