Changing Direction on Direction of Fit

In this paper, I show that we should understand the direction of fit of beliefs and desires in normative terms. After rehearsing a standard objection to Smith’s analysis of direction of fit, I raise a similar problem for Humberstone’s analysis. I go on to offer my own account, according to which the difference between beliefs and desires is determined by the normative relations such states stand in. I argue that beliefs are states which we have reason to change in light of the world, whereas desires are states that give us reason to change the world. I end by briefly discussing the relevance of my view to the Humean theory of motivation. Perhaps the two most central mental states that humans have are beliefs and desires. Direction of fit accounts aim to say something about what these mental states are by drawing a certain contrast between them. Beliefs aim to fit the world, whereas desires aim to have the world fit them. But this metaphorical account is imprecise: we need some analysis of what, exactly, a direction of fit amounts to. In this paper I argue against Michael Smith’s (1987, 1994) and Lloyd Humberstone’s (1992) attempts at this task, and try to put something in their place. In section 1, I briefly explain the nature and point of the direction of fit account. I then explain why Smith’s account fails, and then argue that Humberstone’s account is vulnerable to a similar objection. In section 2, I present my own view, according to which we should understand direction of fit in normative terms. In section 3, I briefly discuss the relationship between my view and the Humean theory of motivation.