Agents can be opaque to themselves
Self-deception, habit and unconscious motivation challenge the claim that practical knowledge authoritatively tracks what an agent is doing.
Twentieth-century philosophy · 1919–2001
G. E. M. Anscombe
Anscombe rebuilds moral philosophy from a careful account of intentional action, refusing to treat intention as a private item hidden behind behaviour.
Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe was a British philosopher whose work transformed action theory, ethics and the interpretation of Wittgenstein. A forceful Catholic thinker and public controversialist, she analysed intention while attacking modern moral theories that use obligation language without its older framework.
AgencyEthicsMind
The question she enters
The question G. E. M. Anscombe enters
Under which description is the same bodily movement intentional—moving an arm, pumping water, poisoning a household or earning wages?
The central move
Ask the agent's practical question
Anscombe argues that intentional action is identified through a distinctive form of practical knowledge and through the question 'Why?'. One event can fall under many descriptions, only some of them intentional. Intention is therefore neither a private accompanying feeling nor merely a prediction of what the body will do.
Key ideas
Terms that carry the argument.
- Action under a description
- An event may be intentional as described one way and unintentional under another description of the same movement.
- Practical knowledge
- Non-observational knowledge of what one is intentionally doing, guiding the action rather than merely recording it.
- Why-question
- A request for reasons whose applicability helps distinguish intentional action and reveals its means-end order.
- Modern moral philosophy
- Anscombe's critique of obligation-centred ethical theories developed without an adequate philosophy of psychology or account of human flourishing.
Where the view strains
Objections and limits.
The historical critique does not settle ethics
Rejecting consequentialism and modern obligation language still leaves disagreement about the virtues, natural law and justified action.
Sources and routes
Read the work. Follow the argument.
Primary texts
Where to meet the position.
- WorldCatIntentionWebThe landmark analysis of intentional action, practical knowledge and reasons.WorldCat record for the 2000 Harvard University Press paperback edition of Anscombe's 1957 monograph. · Bibliographic and library-location record only; availability depends on the holding library. Checked Aug 2026.
- Cambridge CoreModern Moral PhilosophyWebA critique of consequentialism, moral obligation and the state of moral psychology.Philosophy, volume 33, issue 124, January 1958. · Official Cambridge Core article page with full-text access where made available under the publisher's terms. Checked Aug 2026.
- PhilArchiveWar and MurderPDFAn argument about intention, civilian killing and the moral corruption of consequentialist reasoning.Full-text copy of the essay first published in Nuclear Weapons: A Catholic Response (1961), supplied through the PhilPapers/PhilArchive research index. · Free full-text PDF; automated clients may encounter an anti-bot response, but the document is indexed and readable through the repository. Checked Aug 2026.