Correct vs. ‘merely true’ act‐descriptions

Abstract

This paper is a critical analysis of David Rayfield's attempt to distinguish true from correct descriptions of human actions (Inquiry, Vol. 13 [1970], Nos. 1–2). It is argued that the analysis fails to do the job required of it for two reasons. First, the analysis of true descriptions is circular insofar as it turns on the notion of an ‘unbound action’. Secondly, and independent of the charge of circularity, it is shown that the basis upon which Rayfield draws the true‐correct distinction leads to certain unacceptable consequences for action theory.