Promises, Intentions, and Reasons for action

Abraham Roth argues that to accept a promise is to intend the performance of the promised action. I argue that this proposal runs into trouble because it makes it hard to explain how promises provide reasons for the performance of the promised action. Then, I ask whether we might fill the gap by saying that a promisor becomes entitled to the reasons for which her promise is accepted. I argue that this fix would implausibly shrink the class of binding promises and suggest that similar difficulties may arise for any theory that casts promises as an exercise of shared agency. © 2021 The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. Published by The University of Chicago Press.12 month embargo; published: 01 October 2021This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu