On the Connection between Normative Reasons and the Possibility of Acting for those Reasons

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (5):1211-1223 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX


According to Bernard Williams, if it is true that A has a normative reason to Φ then it must be possible that A should Φ for that reason. This claim is important both because it restricts the range of reasons which agents can have and because it has been used as a premise in an argument for so-called ‘internalist’ theories of reasons. In this paper I rebut an apparent counterexamples to Williams’ claim: Schroeder’s example of Nate. I argue that this counterexample fails since it underestimates the range of cases where agents can act for their normative reasons. Moreover, I argue that a key motivation behind Williams’ claim is compatible with this ‘expansive’ account of what it is to act for a normative reason. (Published with Open Access.)

Author's Profile

Neil Sinclair
Nottingham University


Added to PP

498 (#35,210)

6 months
73 (#66,512)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?