An epistemic modal norm of practical reasoning

When are you in a position to rely on p practical reasoning? Existing accounts say that must know p, or be justified believing justifiably believe it, and so on. This paper argues all of these proposals face important problems, which I call the Problems Negative Bootstrapping Level Confusions. offer diagnosis argue an adequate epistemic norm transparent following sense: According any norm, consideration counts favor (or against) relying reasoning for action iff, extent that, this also being true. introduce candidate satisfies condition. one should only if it p. show we adopt non-factualist account “must”, amounts novel attractive proposal, proposal transparency