 Along with such matters of detail, two problems of principle can be raised against the present approach. The first contends that it is tacitly circular, because the content of intention always includes the concept of intentionality (Wilson 1989, pp. 274–5; Ginet 1990, pp. 34–5). In prospective intention, I intend not only to do A, but to do A intentionally, and the same point holds for the object of intention in action. This prevents us from explaining what it is to act intentionally in terms of intention as a mental state. Alternatively, one might hold, as Anscombe (1963, §47) apparently does, that for some values of ‘A’—as perhaps, paying, hiring, or marrying—it is essential to doing A that one do it intentionally (see Ford 2015; Setiya 2016a).