Karin Björnberg

If goals are to fulfil their typical function of regulating action in a way that contributes to an agent’s long-term interests in getting what he or she wants, they need to have a certain stability. At the same time, it is not difficult to imagine situations in which the agent could have a reason to revise his or her goals; goals that are entirely impossible to achieve or approach to a meaningful degree appear to warrant some modification. This chapter addresses the question of when it is rationally justified to reconsider one’s prior goals. In doing so, it enriches the strictly instrumental conception of rationality. Using Bratman’s (1992; 1999) theory of intention and Edvardsson and Hansson’s (2005) theory of rational goal-setting, the chapter critically analyses the steps in the argumentative chain that ought to be considered before it can be concluded that a decision maker has sufficient reason to reconsider her goals. Two sets of revision-prompting considerations are identified: achievability- and desirability-related considerations. It is argued that changes in the agent’s beliefs about the goal’s achievability and/or desirability could give her a prima facie reason to reconsider the goal. However, whether there is sufficient reason—all things considered—to revise the goal hinges on additional factors. Three such factors are discussed: pragmatic, moral and symbolic factors.

Goals are often set as part of clusters of goals. On the assumption that goals are set because we want to achieve them it is interesting to study not only the conditions under which individual goals are rational but also the factors that combine to determine the rationality of a goal system. This paper argues that to be rational goal systems ought to be coherent, at least to some degree. The paper provides an analysis of goal system coherence and discusses to what extent goal conflicts are problematic from an action-guiding viewpoint. /// Muchas veces las metas se fijan como parte de grupos de metas. Bajo el supuesto de que las metas se fijan porque queremos lograrlas, resulta interesante estudiar no sólo las condiciones en las que cada meta es racional, sino también los factores que se combinan para determinar la racionalidad de un sistema de metas. Este trabajo argumenta que, para ser racionales, los sistemas de metas deben ser coherentes, o al menos deben serlo hasta cierto punto. El artículo ofrece un análisis de la coherencia de un sistema de metas y discute en qué grado los conflictos de metas son problemáticos desde el punto de vista de guiar la acción.

The normative criterion of attainability, or non-utopianism, is often referred to in discussions of goal-setting rationality. Goals should be realistic, it is argued, since it is unreasonable to adopt goals that cannot be achieved and that are of no use in the selection of means toward their realization. However, despite the proposed requirement of attainability, utopian or semi-utopian goals are often adopted in political contexts, the Swedish Vision Zero for trafflc safety being one example. This paper develops and analyzes four objections that can be raised against the use of utopian goals and to support the normative criterion of attainability: that utopian goals are (1) too imprecise and (2) too far-reaching to guide action effectively, (3) counterproductive, and (4) morally objectionable. A tentative defense of utopian goal-setting is built on the counter-arguments that can be put forward to weaken each of the four objections.

The typical function of goals is to regulate action in a way that furthers goal achievement. Goals are typically set on the assumption that they will help bring the agent(s) closer to the desired state of affairs. However, sometimes endorsement of a goal, or the processes by which the goal is set, can obstruct its achievement. When this happens, the goal is self-defeating. Self-defeating goals are common in both private and social decision-making but have not received much attention by decision theorists. In this paper, we investigate different variants of three major types of selfdefeating mechanisms: (1) The goal can be an obstacle to its own fulfilment (self-defeating goal endorsement), (2) goal-setting activities can impede goal achievement (self-defeating goalsetting), and (3) disclosure of the goal can interfere with its attainment (self-defeating goal disclosure). Different strategies against self-defeasance are tentatively explored, and their efficiency against different types of self-defeasance is investigated.

This paper analyses how Vision Zero (VZ) efforts in New York City (NYC) account for equity and social justice implications of road safety work. VZ policy documents, research literature, popular science and opinion articles on road safety work in the city were studied with a prime focus on equity and social justice. Twelve semi-structured interviews with stakeholders involved in road safety and transport planning in the city and at national level were conducted to gain an in-depth understanding of policy design, the adoption process, and the role of equity considerations in the city's road safety work. The results show that major equity and social justice issues arise in the adoption and implementation of VZ. These issues are primarily related to equity and fairness in the distribution of life saving interventions, the socio-economic impacts of road safety strategies, and the nature of community engagement in policy design and implementation. The findings point to a need for VZ practitioners to give due considerations to equity and social justice implications of VZ policies and strategies. Among others, it supports the need for understanding the nature of past equity and social justice problems in road safety and transport planning in the VZ policy design process. Moreover, the findings suggest the need for empirical studies on the socio-economic implications of VZ strategies and interventions.

Despite Vision Zero’s moral appeal and its expansion throughout the world, it has been criticized on different grounds. This chapter is based on an extensive literature search for criticism of Vision Zero, using the bibliographic databases Philosopher’s Index, Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, Google Scholar, PubMed, and Phil Papers, and by following the references in the collected documents. Even if the primary emphasis was on Vision Zero in road traffic, our search also included documents criticizing Vision Zero policies in other safety areas, such as public health, the construction and mining industries, and workplaces in general. Based on the findings, we identify and systematically characterize and classify the major arguments that have been put forward against Vision Zero. The most important arguments against Vision Zero can be divided into three major categories: moral arguments, arguments concerning the rationality of Vision Zero, and arguments aimed at the practical implementation of the goals. We also assess the arguments. Of the 13 identified main arguments, 6 were found to be useful for a constructive discussion on safety improvements.

Biodiversity offsetting is an increasingly popular policy instrument used to compensate for losses in biodiversity and ecosystem services caused by development projects. Although evidence suggests that offsetting can yield significant environmental benefits, application of the policy instrument is surrounded by controversy. Among other things, critics argue that offsetting builds on normatively contentious assumptions regarding the value of nature and the fungibility of biodiversity components, such as species, habitats, ecosystems, and landscapes. A large portion of the criticism targets the allegedly illegitimate commodification of nature that the policy instrument entails. Exploring the significantly more developed normative discussion on carbon offsetting, this article identifies four arguments that plausibly could be made to support the claim that it is wrong to commodify nature in the way biodiversity offsetting schemes do: the common ownership argument, the price argument, the non‐substitutability argument, and the “crowding out” argument. Although none of the arguments definitively invalidate the use of biodiversity offsets, they provide good reasons to proceed with caution when designing and implementing them.

Opposition against greenhouse gas emissions reductions is strong among some conservative Christian groups, especially in the United States. In this paper, we identify five scripture-based arguments against greenhouse gas mitigation put forward by a core group of Christian conservatives (‘the Cornwallists'): the anti-paganism argument, the enrichment argument, the omnipotence argument, the lack of moral relevance argument and the cost-benefit argument. We evaluate to what extent the arguments express positions that can be characterised as climate science denialist and to what degree they are consistent with support for climate adaptation. Using Stefan Rahmstorf's (2004) taxonomy of climate science denial, we conclude that the Cornwallists could be labelled climate change deniers. However, their opposition is not only based on denial of climate science but often rests on premises that render the science irrelevant, a position we term ‘relevance denialism’.

In recent years, the EU legislation on genetically modified crops has come under severe criticism. Among the arguments are that the present legislation is inconsistent, disproportionate, obsolete from a scientific point of view, and vague in terms of its scope. In this paper, the EU GM legislation is analysed based on five proposed criteria: legal certainty, non-discrimination, proportionality, scientific adaptability, and inclusion of non-safety considerations. It is argued that the European regulatory framework does not at present satisfy the criteria of legal certainty, non-discrimination, and scientific adaptability. Two ways of reforming the present legislation toward greater accommodation of the values expressed through the proposed criteria are briefly introduced and discussed.

The typical function of goals is to regulate action in a way that furthers goal achievement. Goals are typically set on the assumption that they will help bring the agent closer to the desired state of affairs. However, sometimes endorsement of a goal, or the processes by which the goal is set, can obstruct its achievement. When this happens, the goal is self-defeating. Self-defeating goals are common in both private and social decision-making but have not received much attention by decision theorists. In this paper, we investigate different variants of three major types of self-defeating mechanisms: The goal can be an obstacle to its own fulfilment, goal-setting activities can impede goal achievement, and disclosure of the goal can interfere with its attainment. Different strategies against self-defeasance are tentatively explored, and their efficiency against different types of self-defeasance is investigated.

Sustainable development is a common goal in the public sector but may be difficult to implement due to epistemic uncertainties and the long time frames required. This paper proposes that some of these problems can be solved by formulating cautious utopias, entailing a relationship between means and goals differing from both utopian and realistic goal-setting. Cautiously utopian goals are believed, but not certain, to be achievable and to remain desirable, but are open to future adjustments due to changing desires and/or factual circumstances. Quality criteria for such goals are suggested.

It is commonly argued that cultural objects ought to be returned to their place of origin in order to remedy injustices committed in the past. In this paper, it is shown that significant challenges attach to this way of arguing. Although there is considerable intuitive appeal in the idea that if somebody wrongs another person then she ought to compensate for that injustice, the principle is difficult to apply to wrongdoings committed many decades or centuries ago. It is not clear that historic injustices can meaningfully be corrected, or compensated for, and there are several arguments why, even in cases where there is a prima facie moral case for compensation, repatriation might not be a legitimate means of remedy. In order to bring analytical clarity to the issue, this paper discusses the various steps of the argument that must be addressed in order to ground a valid repatriation claim based on historic injustices.

The overall aim of this thesis is to present a model for rational goal-setting and to illustrate how it can be applied in evaluations of public policies, in particular policies concerning sustainable development and environmental quality. The contents of the thesis are divided into two sections: a theoretical section and an empirical section. Paper I identifies a set of rationality criteria for single goals and discusses them in relation to the typical function of goals. It is argued that goals are typically set to enhance goal achievement. A goal that successfully furthers its achievement is “achievement-inducing”. It holds for each of the identified criteria that, ceteris paribus, improved satisfaction of a criterion makes a goal better in the achievement-inducing sense.Paper II contains an analysis of the notion of goal system coherence. It is argued that the coherence of a goal system is determined by the relations that hold among the goals in the system, in particular the relations of operationalization, means and ends, support, and conflict. Paper III investigates the rationality of utopian goals. The paper analyzes four arguments that support the normative criterion of attainability: that utopian goals are too imprecise and too far-reaching to guide action effectively, counterproductive, and morally objectionable. A tentative defence of utopian goal-setting is built on counter-arguments that can be put forward to weaken each of the four objections. Paper IV investigates the nature of self-defeating goals. The paper identifies three types of situations in which self-defeating mechanisms obstruct goal achievement: situations in which the goal itself carries the seeds of its own non-fulfilment, situations in which the activity of goal-setting contributes to goal failure, and situations in which disclosure of the goal interferes with progress. Paper V provides a brief description of the Swedish system of environmental objectives and a preliminary inventory of the management difficulties that attach to this goal system.Paper VI contains an investigation into the rationality of five Swedish environmental objectives through an application of the rationality criteria identified in Papers I-II. The paper identifies and discusses some difficulties that are associated with management by objectives and the use of goals in environmental policy. Paper VII analyses the rationality of the Swedish environmental quality objective A good built environment. Among the conclusions drawn in the paper are that some of the sub-goals to the objective are formulated in terms that are unnecessarily vague from an action-guiding standpoint and that others are problematic from the viewpoint of evaluability.