Practical reasons, theoretical reasons, and permissive and prohibitive balancing

Philosophers have often noted a contrast between practical and theoretical reasons when it comes to cases involving equally balanced reasons. When there are strong for A-ing, some incompatible option, B-ing, the agent is permitted make an arbitrary choice them, having sufficient reason A B. But evidence P ~ P, one isn’t simply believe or other. Instead, must withhold belief, neither believing that nor P. This paper examines what explains this contrast, focusing in particular on proposal recently developed by Mark Schroeder across several papers. aims explain appeal non-evidential, epistemic against belief. But, I argue, it’s not clear exactly those are, how be weighed evidential Despite these challenges, argue grounds optimism can explained within broad framework provides, aim provide resources meet aforementioned challenges.