Reflection and Freedom: Decoding Human Decision-making

According to Korsgaard, the human mind is “essentially reflective” (92). By this, she means that we are capable of examining and evaluating the various perceptions and desires which make up the content of our mind. This ablility gives rise to a problem she terms the “normative problem,” since we can critically question whether the perceptions and desires we experience are reasons, or whether they dictate how we should act. This is a problem because if the mind continues to reflect and can grasp no reason, “it cannot commit itself or go forward” (93). She also thinks that “because of the reflective character of the mind ... we must act ... under the idea of freedom” (94). Desires and perceptions appear to us, but which of them influences our actions is a matter of which we choose to act on. The notion of “freedom” as well as that of “reasons” are essential for explaining how we make decisions when we reflect on our options for how to act (96). Korsgaard defines a reason as a “reflective success,” or an agent 's affirmation of some

Instead, she takes her argument to demonstrate that the reflective nature of the human mind entails that agents identify themselves with standards which dictate how they should act (103-104). This means that “autonomy is the source of obligation,” because agents are lawmakers who self-impose the standards ascribed by their accepted identities. Korsgaard explains this in terms of one 's “thinking self” and “acting self.” When we reflect on how to act, our acting self submits to the authority of the thinking self, which is charged with determining the best course of action (104). In this way, we have the authority to be lawmakers to ourselves because “we command ourselves to do what we find it would be a good idea to do”