Anascombe's Acting Case Study

Anscombe’s Acting With a Further Intention and Stout’s Acting While Merely Foreseeing

Anscombe has already discussed how a special sense of the question “Why?”, can reveal an intentional action. However, her principle of further intention is a method of examining action by asking the question “Why?” in more complex terms. This approach begins with basic intention and extends through an action. For example, rather than simply stopping at, “Why are you moving your arm like that?” one can ask a further question based on the given answer. Sheila answers, “I’m moving my arm to operate the pump?” and she is operating the pump to replenish the water supply, and so on. Eventually, through this process, a further, more illuminating intention is
It is possible the water is poisoned without Bob’s knowledge, and in this case his answer to, ‘Why are you replenishing the water supply?’, would have nothing to do with poisoning. If Jim asks him why he is poisoning the inhabitants, Bob rejects the question, by explaining that he is not aware of the poison. It is quite obvious in a case like this, that the poisoning is not intentional, even though it is a direct consequence of his action. Consider, perhaps at some point Bob is made aware of the poison, but continues to pump anyway. In this scenario, when asked why he is replenishing the water with poisoned water, Bob may explain that he needs the money, and so he continues doing his job, regardless of the poison. In this case it would be incorrect, under Anscombe’s model, to say Bob is intentionally poisoning the inhabitants. In other words, poisoning the inhabitants is not part of his plan or a means to an end. It is merely a foreseen consequence of his action. So what circumstance would make it the case that Bob intentionally poisons people? Reducing intentional action to a certain answer to the question “Why?” raises the issue of truthfulness. Bob can simply lie, giving an answer which describes his action as unintentional. However, Anscombe argues, it is possible to gain some insight into the truthfulness of an answer by considering context. In the pumping case, where Bob is just doing his job to earn his pay, it must actually be his job to pump the water, and he must also not do anything out of the ordinary, which aids in the poisoning. Suppose Bob is contracted under the stipulation that he will poison the inhabitants. In this case Bob cannot simply explain that he needs the money and so continues on with his job. His pay is contingent upon the poisoning, and so this sort of response does not work. His answer