ABSTRACT
A definition of desire, in terms of its function in the determination of rational action, is examined. The question is raised whether this definition is adequate: whether it is not viciously circular, whether it explains the rationality of acting so as to satisfy one's desires, whether it distinguishes between what one wants and the possibly unwanted effects of getting what one wants, and whether it distinguishes desire from belief, on the one hand, and from intention on the other. Amendments are proposed which equip the definition to meet these requirements. The amendments would require the postulation of an autonomous mental faculty of appetition, and the recognition of the role of something's being good, in an adequate definition of desire. The question whether a definition employing that predicate can parade as “naturalistic” is addressed briefly, and its continuity with a conception of desires as representations of needs is asserted.
