Oxford University Press (2014)

It is often claimed that irreducibly normative truths would have unacceptable metaphysical implications, and are incompatible with a scientific view of the world. The book argues, on the basis of a general account of the relevance of ontological questions, that this claim is mistaken. It is also a mistake to think that interpreting normative judgments as beliefs would make it impossible to explain their connection with action. An agent’s acceptance of a normative judgment can explain that agent’s subsequent action because it is part of being a rational agent that such an agent’s beliefs about reasons normally, but not invariably, make a difference to the agent’s subsequent behavior. Because facts about reasons are not entities existing apart from us, there is no epistemological problem of how we can “be in touch with” such facts. There are serious worries about normative knowledge, but the problems involved are internal to the normative domain itself. The best solution to these problems would be an overall account of the domain of reasons in normative terms, supported by an argument from reflective equilibrium. But no existing account, constructivist, or based on desires or on an idea of rationality, is plausible, and no alternative is likely to succeed. Conclusions about reasons for action must rest on more piecemeal applications of the method of reflective equilibrium.
Keywords reasons  rationality  normative  ontology  reflective equilibrium  epistemology  constructivism
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2016
Buy this book $18.67 new (19% off)   $18.94 used (17% off)   $22.95 from Amazon    Amazon page
ISBN(s) 9780199678488   0199678480   9780198748106   0198748108
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,089
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
Chapters BETA
Epistemology and Determinateness

There is no problem about knowledge of normative truths, or mathematical truths, arising from a difficulty about how we could be in touch with facts about these subjects. Ideally, the possibility of such knowledge could be explained by an overall account of the subject in question, in its ... see more

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Unity of Grounding.Selim Berker - 2018 - Mind 127 (507):729-777.
Real Definition.Gideon Rosen - 2015 - Analytic Philosophy 56 (3):189-209.
Defining Normativity.Stephen Finlay - 2019 - In Kevin Toh, David Plunkett & Scott Shapiro (eds.), Dimensions of Normativity: New Essays on Metaethics and Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press. pp. 62-104.

View all 258 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Reasons That Matter.Stephen Finlay - 2006 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 84 (1):1 – 20.
Are There Any Nonmotivating Reasons for Action?Noa Latham - 2003 - In Sven Walter & Heinz-Dieter Heckmann (eds.), Physicalism and Mental Causation. Imprint Academic. pp. 273.
Reasons, Values, and Rational Actions.Paul K. Moser - 1990 - Journal of Philosophical Research 15:127-151.
Reasons and Motivation.Derek Parfit - 1997 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 71 (1):99–130.
Are Epistemic Reasons Ever Reasons to Promote?Clayton Littlejohn - 2013 - Logos and Episteme 4 (3):353-360.
Reasons and Impossibility.Ulrike Heuer - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 147 (2):235 - 246.
Converging on Values.Donald C. Hubin - 1999 - Analysis 59 (4):355–361.
Buck-Passing and the Wrong Kind of Reasons.Jonas Olson - 2004 - Philosophical Quarterly 54 (215):295–300.


Added to PP index

Total views
145 ( #79,627 of 2,499,053 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #89,671 of 2,499,053 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes