Resumen de Voodoo dolls and angry lions: how emotions explain arational actions

Andrea Scarantino, Michael Nielsen

• Hursthouse (J Philos 88(2):57–68, 1991) argues that arational actions—e.g. kicking a door out of anger—cannot be explained by belief–desire pairs. The Humean Response to Hursthouse (Smith in Human action, deliberation and causation. Springer, Netherlands, pp 17–41, 1998; Goldie in The emotions: a philosophical exploration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000a; Goldie in Mind 109(433):25–38, 2000b) defends the Humean model from Hursthouse’s challenge. We argue that the Humean Response fails because belief–desire pairs are neither necessary nor sufficient for causing emotional actions. The Emotionist Response is to embrace Hursthouse’s conclusion that emotions provide an independent source of explanation for intentional actions. We consider Döring’s (Philos Q 53(211):214–230, 2003) feeling-based Emotionist account and argue that it fails to explain arational actions. Finally, we develop our own Emotionist account, grounded in the Motivational Theory of Emotions one of us has developed. On our account, arational actions form a non-homogeneous class, some members of which must be understood as instrumental actions and some members of which must be understood as displacement behaviors of the kind animals display when their motivations are thwarted or in conflict