Explaining normative reasons

In this paper, we present and defend a natural yet novel analysis of normative reasons. According to what call support-explanationism, for fact be reason φ is it explain why there's support φ-ing. We critically consider the two main rival forms explanationism—ought-explanationism, on which reasons facts about ought, good-explanationism, goodness—as well as popular Reasons-First view, takes notion normatively fundamental. Support-explanationism, argue, enjoys many virtues these views while avoiding their drawbacks. conclude by exploring several further important implications: among other things, argue that influential metaphor ‘weighing’ inapt, propose better one; that, contrary Berker (2019) suggests, no non-naturalists normativity accept view; Wodak (2020b) explanationist can successfully accommodate he calls ‘redundant reasons’.