BDT: I think that a lot of the stuff Andrea put in the script is true, or based on the truth, but the way I understand it, that book is from the DEA agent's point-of-view... Yes, right.
Thus it is widely accepted that the rational action for a given agent to take is the one whose subjective expected utility reflecting both the utility of possible outcomes, from the agent's point of view, and the agent's beliefs about the probability of those outcomes is the highest.
Taking the agent's point of view does not mean entering the agent's mind by some quasi-miraculous telepathic process; it requires rather that we temporarily suspend our own epistemic and motivational premises in order to understand the inferential processes that guide agents with radically different beliefs.
Agents persist through time; and so, these accounts stress, an agent's point of view is not simply a function of whatever mental state(s) she happens to be in at some point in time.
"From an agent's point of view, it would prove to be very frustrating.
For Collingwood there is such a thing as seeing the world from the agent's point of view.
Chekola 2007 and Murphy 2001, for instance, appear to use 'happiness' as a descriptive term for a life that is successful from the agent's point of view.
The right mental states and events are states and events that rationalize the action from the agent's point of view (such as desires, beliefs, and intentions).
On this view, a reason explanation is an explanation in terms of mental states and events that cause the action and that rationalize it from the agent's point of view (typically by providing a means-end rationale).
According to one popular story, an agent's point of view is constituted by her highest-order desires regarding which of her first-order desires moves her to act.
