The matter of motivating reasons

Abstract It is now standard in the literature on reasons and rationality to distinguish normative from motivating reasons. Two issues have dominated philosophical theorising concerning latter: (i) whether we should think of them as certain (nonfactive) psychological states agent—the dispute over Psychologism; (ii) say that agent can ϕ for reason p only if p—the Factivism. This paper first introduces a puzzle: these disputes look very much like merely verbal about meaning phrases ‘S’s reason’ ascriptions, yet charity requires us something substantive afoot. But what? The second aim extract theses natural argument Psychologism Anti-Factivism—theses which are versions Cartesian view nature structure rationality. ends by arguing against phenomenological ethical grounds. upshot proponents Anti-Factivism either engaged project defending or they’re false ones.