Case study

Belief, Desire, Intention Model

The belief desire intention model (BDI) Is employed to predict” the processes wherein a person tends to predict and explain someone else's Behavior based on how the former understands the latter’s desires and beliefs. It serves as the basis for the theory of mind.” ( Pam Nugent, psychology dictionary, 2013). The BDI model plays an important role in theory of action and theory of agency. While the BDI model can be used to try to predict the behaviors of others it also shows the structure of items used in clarifying one’s own behavior. We assume actors and rational agents have beliefs and desires, formulate intentions, perform actions and produce outcomes. Similarly when we identify goals each of us through reflection realizes that we have intentions and we act upon these intentions in order to achieve our goals.

    This model which is also related to rational agency is depicted in the following way:

Beliefs                                       

                                 →                   intention →  action  →            outcome

Desires

The belief desire intention model of human practical reasoning,  which was developed by Michael Bratman, builds upon the BDI model (Bratman, ) The BDI model plays an important role in predicting how agents will act and can serve as the basis for predicting how agents will act as well as for helping to predict how future directed reasoning will occur in practical reasoning which is directed towards achieving future goals. This model is used to predict the behavior of others while at the same recognizing we can apply the model to ourselves. The model can be employed to clarify how we develop our plans in order to attempt to achieve our goals. These beliefs and desires are the basis of intentions, actions and goals.

Expanded BDI model

Intentions according to the BDI model emerge from an agents beliefs and desires.  When a practically oriented agent begins to reflect upon goals, a range of future possibilities spread out before them, there is a range of possibilities from which this agent can select. At some point in the process of deliberation an agent narrows down the possibilities available to them and selects an intention from a wider range of possibilities. It is also important to recognize that also central to the process is a reflection of upon where beliefs and  desires come from.

This appears in the following diagram

                           beliefs

where do                                                                                                                           goals

These come                      →                   Intentions →  actions →  Outcomes

from?                                                                                                                                  Ends

                          Desires

Theoretical and practical reasoning are both involved  when rational agents reflect upon determining possible courses of action.  

Moral agency is concerned with determining how according to moral systems and theories, rational and practical agents can be held morally responsible and accountable.

The problem that we have to confront is what is referred to by James Rachel's as the problem of definition. ( see James Rachel's the elements of moral philosophy McGraw-Hill, 7ed.,  2012. P. 1)

“Moral philosophy is the study of what morality is and what it requires of us.  As Socrates said, it's about’ how we ought to live’ - and why. it would be helpful if we could begin with a simple uncontroversial definition of what morality is, but that turns out to be impossible there are many rival theories….”

To attempt to address this problem  we shall employ what has been referred to as ‘ethical pluralism.’ According to U of B reading ethical pluralism is the view that …

This aligns with what Rachel's  refers to as the minimum conception of morality ( see Rachel's the elements of moral philosophy,  page 13.

“we may now State the  minimum conception: morality is,  at the very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason -  that is, to do what they're the best reasons for doing - while giving equal weight to the interest of each individual affected by one's decision.”

To assess moral responsibility for a specific actor in a given situation or in a case study requires that we employ a method which examines the perspectives of each of the stakeholders affected by what occurs in the situation or case. Two items are important in this assessment, first, multiple actors (agent’s)  are involved in any situation or case. Second, We are likely to find that different actors will assess a situation or case from the perspectives of different ethical systems and theories.

In order to understand the ethical issues involved with situations and cases we need to have an additional understanding of ethics and moral responsibility. Ethics in a basic definition relates to agents who perform actions. Dwight Furrow identifies the focus of ethical analysis as involving a series of factors. As Furrow states, ethics is related to evaluating actions and actions are performed by those capable of being moral agents. Furrow continues by stating, “When we evaluate an action, we can focus on various dimensions of the action. We can evaluate the person who is acting, the intention or motive of the person acting, the nature of the act itself, or the consequences. ” (Ethics: Key Concepts in Philosophy, Dwight Furrow, Continuum, New York, NY. p. 44.)

Two points are made within this passage. Ethical issues related to situations and cases and are based upon the idea that when actions agents perform actions these actions are capable of moral assessment. Moreover this action is an extension of what a person does  when they deliberate upon possibilities. In other words, the actions of agents are capable of being evaluated based upon both the intentions and actions of the person involved in the situation or case. If this is true and if we endorse the distinctions identified in the preceding passage and apply them to the assessment of moral responsibility in situations and cases, there are three levels of moral responsibility and evaluation. We can evaluate the actions of a person in the situation or case, we can assess the intentions of the person’s involved in the situation or case, and we can assess the consequences of the actions intended by the person in the situation or case.

The following diagram shows how the BDI model when used as a theory of action (which involves a depiction of how agents Act) can also be used to model how there is an intersection with moral theories and systems employed to assess moral responsibility. Theoretical reasoning develops ideas related to how we theorize about what we may be planning on doing, while practical reasoning engages in determining how to actually act. Moral reasoning attempts to show how moral agents are morally responsible due to character traits, intentions, actions and outcomes produced by character traits, intentions, and actions.

These intersections are depicted below.

                           beliefs

                                                                                                                          goals

Character Traits                         Intentions →  Actions →  Outcomes

Virtue Ends Ethics                                                              ↓                                    ↓                                  

                        Desires   

Deontology Consequentialism

Aristotle Kant and Ross Mill

Some Feminist

Ethicists

(Honest Work xxviii) (Honest Work xxviii) (Honest Work xxv)

A more developed account and diagram of these intersections can include additional moral principles that are focused on actions. It is important to keep in mind that actions have 3 dimensions, intentions are connected to actions and outcomes result from actions. These distinctions and often not separated when in lived experience we live through events. It is only when we engage in reflection what has occurred that we separate them into distinct units.

These additional distinctions are diagrammed below.

Justice

↓

Rights

Human Political

Positive Negative

↓

beliefs

                                                                                                                           Goals

Character Traits                         Intentions → Actions → Outcomes

Virtue Ends Ethics                                                                                                                                  

                        Desires   ↓ ↓

 

Deontology Consequentialism

Duty/Rule Short term Long term

Aristotle Kant and Ross Mill

Some Feminist

Ethicists

(Honest Work xxviii) (Honest Work xxviii) (Honest Work xxv)

Virtues Categorical Imperative I Pleasure/Pain

Honesty Can you universalize your plans? Happiness/Unhappiness

Kindness Categorical Imperative II Benefit/Cost

Just (Fairness) Never use yourself or others

Honor Autonomy

4