PhilArchive
open access
Two Constraints on Normative Reasons
Conner Schultz (2025) has claimed that there are no normative reasons for the emotions, and perhaps not even for desire and preference. I will argue, in reply, that his argument for this claim fails, for we ought to distinguish two different constraints on normative reasons: the response constraint and the deliberative constraint. An upshot of my discussion is that our take on what normative reasons are affects our take on what there can be normative reasons for—a crucial observation, if we want to find a general theory of normative reasons.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Reasons or Fittingness First?#118145
- Reason-based rationalization#720330
- In Defence of State‐Based Reasons to Intend#754985
- Must Reasons be Either Theoretical or Practical? Aesthetic Criticism and Appreciative Reasons#737244
- n-1 Guilty Men#707098
Record · ID 688268
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive