So why can’t you intend to drink the toxin?

References

• Anscombe, E. 1963. Intention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bratman, M. 1987. Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bratman, M. 1999. “Toxin, Temptation, and the Stability of Intention.” In Faces of Intention, 58–90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bratman, M. 2013. “The Interplay of Intention and Reason.” Ethics 123 (4): 657–672. doi: 10.1086/670245
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broome, J. 2001. “Are Intentions Reasons? And How Should We Cope with Incommensurable Values?” In Practical Rationality and Preference, edited by C. Morris, and A. Ripstein, 98–120. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, R. 2008. “Autonomous Reasons for Intending.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86 (2): 191–212. doi: 10.1080/00048400801886181
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidson, D. 1980. “Actions, Reasons, and Causes.” In Essays on Actions and Events, 3–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davidson, D. 1985. “Replies to Essays I-IX.” In Essays on Davidson: Actions and Events, edited by B. Vermazen, and M. B. Hintikka, 195–229. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elster, J. 1979. Ulysses and the Sirens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, D. 1989. “Intention, Reason, and Action.” American Philosophical Quarterly 26 (4): 283–295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frankfurt, H. 1988a. “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person.” In The Importance of What We Care About, 11–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frankfurt, H. 1988b. “Identification and Wholeheartedness.” In The Importance of What We Care About, 159–176. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gauthier, D. 1998a. “Rethinking the Toxin Puzzle.” In Rational Commitment and Social Justice, edited by J. Coleman, and C. Morris, 47–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gauthier, D. 1998b. “Intention and Deliberation.” In Modeling Rationality, Morality, and Evolution, edited by P. Danielson, 41–54. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goetz, S. 1998. “Reasons for Forming an Intention: A Reply to Pink.” Mind 107: 205–213. doi: 10.1093/mind/107.425.205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grice, P. 1971. “Intention and Uncertainty.” Proceedings of the British Academy 57: 263–279.
   Google Scholar
• Hampshire, S., and H. Hart. 1958. “Decision, Intention, and Certainty.” Mind 67: 1–12. doi: 10.1093/mind/LXVII.265.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heuer, U. 2014. “Intentions and the Reason for Which We Act.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 114 (3): 291–315. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9264.2014.00374.x
   Google Scholar
• Hieronymi, P. 2005. “The Wrong Kind of Reason.” Journal of Philosophy 102: 437–457. doi: 10.5840/jphil2005102933
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hieronymi, P. 2006. “Controlling Attitudes.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87: 45–74. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0114.2006.00247.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holton, R. 2009. Willing, Wanting, Waiting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kavka, G. 1983. “The Toxin Puzzle.” Analysis 43: 33–36. doi: 10.1093/analys/43.1.33
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McClennen, E. 1990. Rationality and Dynamic Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mele, A. 1992. “Intentions, Reasons, and Beliefs: Morals of the Toxin Puzzle.” Philosophical Studies 68: 171–194. doi: 10.1007/BF00354475
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morauta, J. 2010. “In Defense of State-Based Reasons to Intend.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 91: 208–228. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0114.2010.01365.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pink, T. 1991. “Purposive Intending.” Mind 100: 343–359. doi: 10.1093/mind/C.399.343
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroeder, M. 2012. “The Ubiquity of State-Given Reasons.” Ethics 122 (3): 457–488. doi: 10.1086/664753
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Setiya, K. 2007. “Cognitivism about Instrumental Reason.” Ethics 117 (4): 649–667. doi: 10.1086/518954
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah, N. 2008. “How Action Governs Intention.” Philosophers’ Imprint 8 (5): 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M. 1994. The Moral Problem. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sobel, H. 1994. “Useful Intentions.” In Taking Chances: Essays on Rational Choice, 237–255. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stocker, M. 1979. “Desiring the Bad: An Essay in Moral Psychology.” The Journal of Philosophy 76 (12): 738–753. doi: 10.2307/2025856
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velleman, D. 2000. “Introduction.” In The Possibility of Practical Reason, 1–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Velleman, D. 2006. “From Self-Psychology to Moral Philosophy.” In Self to Self, 224–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Velleman, D. 2007. “What Good Is a Will?” In Action in Context, edited by A. Leist, and H. Baumann, 193–215. Berlin: de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Wallace, J. 2001. “Normativity, Commitment, and Instrumental Reason.” Philosophers’ Imprint 1 (3): 1–26.
   Google Scholar