I defend a version of cognitivist motivational internalism which I call belief internalism. The constitutive claim of any version of cognitivist motivational internalism is that moral belief entails motivation. But, while this internalist thesis captures the practical nature of morality, it is in tension with the dominantly held Humean theory of motivation. The constitutive claim of the Humean thesis is that no belief could entail motivation. In defence of this internalist it is tempting to argue either that the Humean constraint only applies to non-moral beliefs or that moral beliefs only motivate ceteris paribus. But, while succumbing to the first temptation places one under an ultimately insurmountable burden to justify the motivational exceptionality of moral beliefs, succumbing to the second temptation saddles one with a thesis that fails to do justice to the practical nature of morality. I avoid the temptation to defend this thesis in either of these flawed ways by defending a more radical departure from the Humean theory of motivation. I avoid the first temptation by arguing for a motivationally efficacious conception of belief. I start the defence by demonstrating that it is conceptually coherent for belief to entail motivation. I then argue that all beliefs have behavioural dispositional properties that are not predicated on desire; in particular, all beliefs can motivate assent without the assistance of a conceptually independent desire. I then develop a unified and inclusive account of cognitive motivation, according to which unqualified normative cognition—which includes moral cognition—motivates normative actions without the assistance of such a desire. Beliefs of the form ‘I ought to ф’, in other words, motivate the believer to ф. I avoid the second temptation by arguing that moral belief motivates simpliciter as opposed to ceteris paribus. There are, however, both commonsense and scientifically informed counterexamples which prima facie demonstrate that it is possible to both fully believe and fully understand one’s first person cognitive moral judgement and yet not motivated by that judgement. I argue that the commonsense prima facie counterexamples are not decisive; and I argue that the scientifically informed prima facie counterexamples misinterpret the empirical research on salient psychological conditions.

I defend a version of cognitivist motivational internalism which I call belief internalism. The constitutive claim of any version of cognitivist motivational internalism is that moral belief entails motivation. But, while this internalist thesis captures the practical nature of morality, it is in tension with the dominantly held Humean theory of motivation. The constitutive claim of the Humean thesis is that no belief could entail motivation. In defence of this internalist it is tempting to argue either that the Humean constraint only applies to non-moral beliefs or that moral beliefs only motivate ceteris paribus. But, while succumbing to the first temptation places one under an ultimately insurmountable burden to justify the motivational exceptionality of moral beliefs, succumbing to the second temptation saddles one with a thesis that fails to do justice to the practical nature of morality. I avoid the temptation to defend this thesis in either of these flawed ways by defending a more radical departure from the Humean theory of motivation. I avoid the first temptation by arguing for a motivationally efficacious conception of belief. I start the defence by demonstrating that it is conceptually coherent for belief to entail motivation. I then argue that all beliefs have behavioural dispositional properties that are not predicated on desire; in particular, all beliefs can motivate assent without the assistance of a conceptually independent desire. I then develop a unified and inclusive account of cognitive motivation, according to which unqualified normative cognition—which includes moral cognition—motivates normative actions without the assistance of such a desire. Beliefs of the form ‘I ought to ф’, in other words, motivate the believer to ф. I avoid the second temptation by arguing that moral belief motivates simpliciter as opposed to ceteris paribus. There are, however, both commonsense and scientifically informed counterexamples which prima facie demonstrate that it is possible to both fully believe and fully understand one’s first person cognitive moral judgement and yet not motivated by that judgement. I argue that the commonsense prima facie counterexamples are not decisive; and I argue that the scientifically informed prima facie counterexamples misinterpret the empirical research on salient psychological conditions.

Experimental studies on willpower confirm the Strength Model of Self-Control, which claims that willpower depends on limited physiological resources. Exercising willpower depletes these resources, which impairs further exercises of willpower. This phenomenon is called “ego-depletion.” As a result, depleting these resources impairs further exercises of executive control. My thesis argues that this phenomenon has two important philosophical consequences: First, ego-depletion provides evidence against the Humean approach to motivation, according to which people always act according to their strongest desires. Second, people suffering from ego-depletion are not fully responsible for failures of self-control.

Bien qu'elle constitue toujours l'orthodoxie en philosophie de l'esprit, la théorie humienne de la motivation (selon laquelle la motivation origine toujours d'un désir et jamais d'une croyance seule) a été plusieurs fois critiquée au cours des dernières décennies. Je passe ici en revue les principaux arguments avancés à la fois pour appuyer et rejeter cette théorie. Du côté humien, j'examine l'argument des croyances identiques, l'argument de la direction d'ajustement et l'argument de l'uniformité théorique. Du côté anti-humien, l'objection voulant que la notion de direction d'ajustement soit circulairement caractérisée, l'objection des croyances irrationnelles et l'objection selon laquelle certains états mentaux présenteraient deux directions d'ajustement. Je conclus qu'aucune de ces objections ne devrait nous conduire à rejeter la théorie humienne, mais aussi que cette dernière trouve son principal appui du côté des considérations relatives à l'uniformité théorique et non du côté de l'argument de la direction d'ajustement comme le pensent plusieurs. / Although remaining orthodoxy in philosophy of mind, the humean theory of motivation (according to which motivation always comes from a desire, never from a belief alone) has often been critized over the last decades. Here I review the main arguments put forward both to support and reject this theory. On the humean side, I examine the argument from identical beliefs, the direction of fit argument and the argument from theoretical uniformity. On the anti-humean side, the objection that direction of fit caracterizations are circular, the objection from irrational beliefs and the objection according to which there could be mental states with two direction of fit. I conclude that none of these objections should lead us to reject the humean theory, but also that this one finds its main support in theoretical unifomity considerations and not in the direction on fit argument as many think.

Bien qu'elle constitue toujours l'orthodoxie en philosophie de l'esprit, la théorie humienne de la motivation (selon laquelle la motivation origine toujours d'un désir et jamais d'une croyance seule) a été plusieurs fois critiquée au cours des dernières décennies. Je passe ici en revue les principaux arguments avancés à la fois pour appuyer et rejeter cette théorie. Du côté humien, j'examine l'argument des croyances identiques, l'argument de la direction d'ajustement et l'argument de l'uniformité théorique. Du côté anti-humien, l'objection voulant que la notion de direction d'ajustement soit circulairement caractérisée, l'objection des croyances irrationnelles et l'objection selon laquelle certains états mentaux présenteraient deux directions d'ajustement. Je conclus qu'aucune de ces objections ne devrait nous conduire à rejeter la théorie humienne, mais aussi que cette dernière trouve son principal appui du côté des considérations relatives à l'uniformité théorique et non du côté de l'argument de la direction d'ajustement comme le pensent plusieurs. / Although remaining orthodoxy in philosophy of mind, the humean theory of motivation (according to which motivation always comes from a desire, never from a belief alone) has often been critized over the last decades. Here I review the main arguments put forward both to support and reject this theory. On the humean side, I examine the argument from identical beliefs, the direction of fit argument and the argument from theoretical uniformity. On the anti-humean side, the objection that direction of fit caracterizations are circular, the objection from irrational beliefs and the objection according to which there could be mental states with two direction of fit. I conclude that none of these objections should lead us to reject the humean theory, but also that this one finds its main support in theoretical unifomity considerations and not in the direction on fit argument as many think.