Journal of Philosophy, Inc.

Individuating Actions Author(s): Judith Jarvis Thomson Source: The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 68, No. 21, Sixty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the American Philosophical Association Eastern Division (Nov. 4, 1971), pp. 774-781 Published by: Journal of Philosophy, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2024950 . Accessed: 27/12/2013 01:46
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Journal of Philosophy, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Philosophy.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.116 on Fri, 27 Dec 2013 01:46:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

774

TIE

JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY

John'sdeterring a pedestrianfrom the street crossing

0 John'sconvincing his examiner that he is a competent driver

John's hishandwet getting

O
(:) 0

John's a turn for signaling

John's extendinghis arm out the window John'sextending his arm

Figure 3 Strictlyspeaking,the set of distinctacts we want on a singleact tree cannot be ordered by the ordinary"by" locution. According to our criterion of individuation, John's singing (at t) and John's singing loudly (at t) willbe distinctacts; but we would not ordinarily say either that John sings "by" singingloudly or that Johnsings loudly"by" singing.This problemcan be handled by introducing a slightlybroaderrelation,which I have called levelgeneration, under which the ordinary by-relation is subsumed. I have triedto analyze the notionof level generation elsewhere, and cannot reviewit here.'6 I believe,however, that the inclusionof the additionalcases does not upsetourdiagrammatic conception. For example,thepairof acts consisting in John's extendinghis arm and John's extendinghis arm out the windowcan be neatly and naturallyfittedonto an act tree as shown in Figure 3. The analysis I have sketched, then, satisfiestwo fundamental desiderata. First, it slices the units of action thinly enough to accommodate the by-relation. This need has been feltby a number of philosopherswho have drawn a distinctionbetween basic and nonbasic actions, but my theoryallows for a strongerorderingof acts than a meredichotomy. Secondly,we make use of thisordering to introducethe notion of an act tree, and we use this notion to explicate the unity among the diverse acts in, say, Anscombe's case. pumpingcase or Davidson's switch-flipping The University of Michigan
ALVIN I. GOLDMAN

INDIVIDUATING

ACTIONS

the a man replenishing ISS ANSCOMBE had imagined

water supply of a house by operating a pump. She it would be true to say thinksthat,in the circumstances,

16 Cf. chapter II, ibid. of Action, on The Individuation in an APA symposium To be presented of the same title, article on AlvinI. Goldman's 27, 1971,commenting December thisJOURNAL, thisissue,pp. 761-774.
*

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.116 on Fri, 27 Dec 2013 01:46:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

INDIVIDUATING

ACTIONS

775

(1) His operating thepumpis hisreplenishing thewatersupply. Mr. Goldman disagrees. I shall concentrateon the second of his arguments,partly because he himselfregards it as fairlystrong, partlybecause it seems to me to raise questions of interest. Goldman says of Miss Anscombe's man that (2) He replenished thewatersupplyby operating thepump.' but, he says, it is false that (3) He operated thepumpby replenishing thewatersupply. and "it would be odd to say that" (4) He operated thepumpby operating thepump. So, he concludes, (1) is false. He doesn't explain,but I suppose that what he has in mindis that (1) should licensesubstitution into (2) to yield (3) and (4). But how could it? (2) doesn't containeitherof the singularterms'his operatthe water supply', so what's to ing the pump' or 'his replenishing ? substitute Presumablyhe thinksthat (2) is analyzable into,or paraphrasable into, somethingthat does contain these singular terms. "As used here," he says, "the preposition'by' seems to express a relation that holds between acts, e.g., between an act of replenishing the water-supplyand an act of operatingthe pump (in that order)" (763). And I suppose it is that relationto which he later refers by the expression'the by-relation'.So perhaps he thinks (2) is paraphrasable into of the watersupplyhas theby-relation (2') His replenishing to his of thepump. operating and that it is into this that we are to make substitutions by appeal to (1). But is (2) paraphrasable into (2')? Suppose Miss Anscombe's man has been pumpingaway everymorning forweeks; only today, forthe first time,were the pipes in order,and so only today, forthe the watersupply by operatingthe pump. first time,did he replenish I referto is Then (2) is true. But if in saying (2') the replenishing today's and the pumping I referto is yesterday's,then-in light of what one supposes Goldman means by 'the by-relation'-(2')
1 Goldmanactuallywrites "He replenishes... by operating..." (763); I shift between habitualand nonhabitual confusion to thepast tenseto avoid a possible ofhiswords. readings

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.116 on Fri, 27 Dec 2013 01:46:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

776

THE JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY

should be false. The difficulty here was drawn attention to somne years ago by Donald Davidson: 'He verbed' doesn't itselfcontain to a particularact, and is true even if he any expressionreferring verbed many times,whereas the nominalization'his verbing' constructedfromit purportsto refer to a particularact. Well, perhapsit is not (2') that he wishesus to take (2) to inean, but rather is a y such thatx is a replenishing (2") Thereis an x and there of and y is an operating thewater supplyby him, ofthepumpby him,and x has the by-relation to y, and x is before NOW. (See again the passage I quoted: "an act of replenishing...", "an act of operating.... ") But unfortunately (2"), like (2), contains . . ', 'his operating.. . ', neither ofthe singularterms'his replenishing. and so thereis no reason to suppose (1) should licenseany substitutions in it. On the otherhand, accepting (2") as a paraphrase of (2) would make troublefor ofthepumpby himifand (5) Everyx is suchthatx is an operating if x is a of the water only replenishing supplyby him. and this is somethingMiss Anscombe would be committedto by heracceptance of (1) in case that man operatesthe pump onlyonce, and replenishes the water supply only once, or anyway never does the one without the other. For the conjunction of (2") and (5) entails is a y suchthatx is an operating ofthe (3") Thereis an x and there of the watersupplyby pumpby him,and y is a replenishing him,and x has the by-relation to y, and x is before NOW. whichis a paraphraseof (3) if (2") is of (2), and so should be false if (3) is false. And I do thinkwe should agree with Goldman that (3) is false. But should we accept (2") as a paraphrase of (2)? It would be fairto object that one can't tell until one is told just what relation this "by-relation"is. Afterall, if I said that for a man to verb, is forone of his acts to have the alpha-relationto anby verb2ing other,you'd certainlywant to know which relationI meant before And Goldman gives us no account of what agreeingor disagreeing. is. this by-relation But perhaps he would reply that although analysis is no doubt needed,he has said enoughforus to see intuitively, pre-analytically, whichrelationit is he means-that it's that relationwhichan act x has to an act y just in case theagent ofx performs x by performing y.

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.116 on Fri, 27 Dec 2013 01:46:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

INDIVIDUATING

ACTIONS

777

I thinkin fact that, in lightof Goldman's views about what causes what, he could make a strongerreply than this; i.e., that it is account possible to produce a fairlysimple and straightforward of what he has in mind. Presumably it couldn't be said that for to y is fory to cause x. If I ringa bell by x to have the by-relation of the pressing a button,Goldman wishesus to say that my ringing bell has the by-relationto my pressingof the button; but, as he of points out, my pressingof the button doesn't cause my ringing the bell. On the otherhand, my pressingof the button does cause the bell to ring; and indeed, it does seem to cause whatever my ringing of the bell causes. If I ringby pressingthe button,and my ringing causes a commotion,a collapse, a death, then my pressing fora of the buttoncauses thosethingstoo. Again,ifJohn'ssignaling turncaused a crash, and he signaled by extendinghis arm, then it does seem as if his extendingof his arm caused that crash too. So why not say: x has the by-relationto y just in case whatever x causes, y causes? This leaves it open that y should cause thingsthat x does not cause, and thus that y not be identical with x. But on any view, Goldman's or anyone else's, this must surelybe allowed for.Some your going to work with people mightfindit plausible to identify your taking the subway, but presumably no one would find it plausible to identifyyour getting to work with your taking the subway-and yet you mightwell get to workby takingthe subway. Now presumablyyour taking the subway does cause all sorts of things that your getting to work does not cause. For example, your takingthe subway mightcause you to sweat (a hot subway), whichyour gettingto workdoes not (a cool office).But if you get to workby takingthe subway,thendoesn't yourtakingthe subway cause whateveryour gettingto workcauses? And at the same time,it leaves open that Goldman is rightabout Miss Anscombe'soperatorof the pump. Goldman can say that (2") of the water supply causes, is true: that whateverthe replenishing the operatingof the pump causes. And, in lightof what he believes about what causes what, he can say that (3") is false.The example but his point, I he uses in his discussion of causality is different, of the take it,would be the same: thereare thingsthat the operating of the water supply does not. pump causes which the replenishing Thus, e.g., the pumpingcauses a clickingof the valves of the pump, a bangingin the pipes leading to the house, a drippingfroma leak in the valve leading into the house, and so on; but the replenishing

II

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.116 on Fri, 27 Dec 2013 01:46:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

778

THE JOURNALOF PHILOSOPHY

of the water supply of the house causes none of these things.So (3") is false. But then (5) must go, forthe conjunctionof it with (2") entails (3"). His opponents,of course, must deny that there is anythingthe pumpingcauses that the replenishing does not. Goldman can now reply: Fine-pending your providing us with a better account of the by-relation, and therebyof (3), this by itselfshows you are wrong,for (3) is false. Unfortunately, since a man's operatinga pump is on any view identical with his operatingthat pump, and thus causes whatever it causes, one who accepts this view of the by-relation is leftwith (4) as true of any man who operates a pump. But perhaps this is not a seriousobjection. Goldman himself did not say (4) was false, but only that it would be "odd" to say it. All this seems to have a certain plausibility-in moods in which one can overlook one's worriesabout causality-and therebyto lend weight to the suppositionthat (2) is paraphrasable as (2"). But what surprises me is to findGoldman himself letting get tempted into thisgame in the first place. For let us remember that he doesn't say of (6) Sebastianstrolled through thestreets of Bologna. that "As used here, the preposition'through'seems to express a relationthat holds betweenan act and a place, e.g., betweenan act and the streetsof Bologna (in that order)"; he doesn't of strolling offer us as a paraphraseof it: ofSebastian, (6") Thereis an x such thatx is a strolling and x has to thestreets of Bologna,and x is before thethrough-relation
NOW. III

Again, 'by' is really only a special case of manner-means-method; yet one does not suppose he would say of (7) Sebastianreplenished thewatersupplywitha pump. that "As used here,the preposition 'with'seems to expressa relation that holds betweenan act and a piece of equipment,e.g., between an act of replenishing the watersupplyand a pump (in that order)," or that he would offer as a paraphraseof it: (7") There is an x suchthatx is a replenishing of thewatersupply and x has thewith-relation to a pump,and x is by Sebastian, before NOW.

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.116 on Fri, 27 Dec 2013 01:46:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

INDIVIDUATING

ACTIONS

779

He could have made just as much troublefor Miss Anscombe by offering (7") as a paraphrase of (7) as by offering (2") as a paraphrase of (2). For let us suppose that (7) is true. WAe may, consistently with this,suppose that (8) Sebastianoperated thepumpwitha pump. is false,that is, that it was with his hand, not a second pump, that Sebastian operated the pump. But, if the "him" of (5) is Sebastian, then one cannot affirm (7") and (5), and deny (8") Thereis an x suchthatx is an operating ofthepumpbySebasto a pump,and x is before tian,and x has the with-relation
NOW.

Yet one supposes that Goldman would not have offered(7") and (8") as paraphrasesof (7) and (8) any morethan he did offer (6") as a paraphrase of (6). For the fact is that (2"), (6"), (7"), and (8") are all Davidsontype construals of the formsof, respectively,(2), (6), (7), and (8).2 And that's a game that Goldman is barredfrom playingby his account of the conditionsunderwhichan act x is identicalwith an act y. On Goldman's view, no strollingof Sebastian throughthe streets of Bologna is identical with any strollingof Sebastian: Sebastian's strolling through the streetsof Bologna is his exemplifySebastian's strollingis his exemplifying aning one act property, act property,and therefore, as his criteriontells other,different, But if (6") is a paraphrase of (6), us, the acts just are different. then a strollingof Sebastian throughthe streetsof Bologna is an x such that x is a strollingof Sebastian and x has the throughrelationto thestreets ofBologna; and everyone oftheseis a strolling of Sebastian. of the watersupply on Goldman's view, no replenishing Similarly, by operatingthe pump by Sebastian is identicalwithany replenishing of the water supply by Sebastian. For the act properties'. . is replenishing the water supply by operatingthe pump' and '...is So he cannot have replenishingthe water supply' are different. of the (2") as a paraphrase of (2). For if it is, then a replenishing the pump by Sebastian is an x such that x watersupplyby operating is a replenishing of the water supply by Sebastian and x has the byrelationto an operatingof the pump by Sebastian; and every one of the water supply by Sebastian. of these is a replenishing In sum, he cannot have both: (2") as a paraphrase of (2), and foract identity. his criterion
2

tenseis builtintothe predicates. In Davidson'sformalizations,

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.116 on Fri, 27 Dec 2013 01:46:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

780

THE JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY

Now it will be remembered that the pointof his argumentagainst Miss Anscombewas preciselyto pave the way for his own, "finegrained", procedureforindividuating acts. Unless some otherway of reconstruing that argumentcan be found,it not only does not do so, it rules it out. What seems to emergeis that we have in front of us, not two views Goldman's and what he refers of act identity, to as "the AnscombeDavidson patternof act-individuation," but instead three.There is, first, what we mightcall the "relaxed view," according to which we are to identify the replenishing with the pumping,a killingwith a shootingwith a pressingof a trigger, a flipping of a switchwith an alertingof a prowler.It is this view which I think Davidson's causal criterionfor act identitywas meant to express. There is, third,Goldman's "extremeview." But there is, between them, a "middle ground," according to which we may not identifya replenishingwith a pumping,but may, and indeed should, identify with a replenishing a replenishing by pumping,and that with a with a pump; accordingto whichwe may not identify replenishing a killingwith a shootingwith a pressingof a trigger, but may, and a killingwitha killingby shooting, and that indeed should,identify with a killingwith a gun; and so on. What I thinkGoldman has shownis that ifyou accept Davidsontype construalsof the logical formof action sentences,then 'by'and, as I think we can see, manner-means-method generallymakes trouble for the relaxed view. So also, on this supposition, do timeand place make troubleforit. (Goldman's causal arguments seem to me to be less compelling,but, as I think,aren't needed anyway.) But none of his argumentsseem to me to give reason to retreatbeyond middle ground to his own extremeview. As I can see nothingto support the extremeview, and am struck by its complications and counterintuitive results, I shall say no more it. about For my part, then, there remain the relaxed view and the middle ground. If you accept Davidson-type construals of the logical formsof action sentences,then I agree with Goldman that you had better retreatfromthe relaxed view, and indeed I think Middle ground mighteven you should become a middle-grounder. be seen as, perhapseven definedas, the special home of that way of taking action sentences. But on the other hand, it is not at all obvious to me that we should take action sentencesin that way. lifeenormously if it were right; but is it? What It would simplify
IV

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.116 on Fri, 27 Dec 2013 01:46:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SINGLINGOUT ACTIONS

78I

it involves, of course, is turningverbs, adverbs, and adverbial predicateson actions, and there phrases into one- or many-termed program.' such a facing are seriousdifficulties at the adverbial phrase 'by a look back quick Let us take just the I could forconstruing I made the best case the pump'. operating 'by' in this as a relationtermby givingthe most plausible account of it that I could construct.But it wasn't really a very good case. For one thing,the account is plausibleonlyifyou are ready to grant that causality is transitive;and if you do grant this,then it is not obvious therewon't be cases of an act y which causes whateverx x by percauses, but whichis notsuch that the agent ofx performs forming y. And if we do not have an account of what this byrelationis, then I thinkwe should be verysuspiciousof it. It ought to strikeus as an odd businessif the only explanationof it is: it is that relationwhichan act x has to an act y just in case the agent of is just that x by performing y. Compare: thewith-relation x performs in relationwhichan act x has to a piece of equipmentjust case the agent of x does x with that piece of equipment. If there are such relations as these, how come we need to use the dummy verbs 'perform'and 'do', the same sort of adverbials now attaching to in order to say what they are? More generally,it seems to them, of me that we really know far too little as yet about the structure ourselves talk as this. such action to be blithelyallowing
JUDITH JARVIS THOMSON

Massachusetts Instituteof Technology

SINGLING OUT ACTIONS, THEIR PROPERTIES AND COMPONENTS *

I. THE DIALECTICAL IMPASSE

seem deadlocked withsuch multipliers as whomI label unifiers, noticehow much of what a Kim, Goldman,and Davis. Unifiers person does during a given time has a common origin. Here's an story: illustrative

INDIVIDUATION theoristslike Anscombeand Davidson,

see J. A. Fodor, "Troublesabout Actions,"Synthese, 3For a budgetof them, xxi (1970): 298-319. * To be presented in an APA symposium of Action," on "The Individuation on Alvin Goldman'sarticleof the same title, December27, 1971,commenting specified nototherwise references thisJOURNAL,thisissue: 761-774.Parenthetical paper. are to pagesofGoldman's

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.116 on Fri, 27 Dec 2013 01:46:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions