Normativity: The Place of Reasoning

25 Pages Posted: 30 Dec 2014 Last revised: 19 Oct 2015

See all articles by Joseph Raz

Joseph Raz

University of Oxford - Faculty of Law; Columbia University - Law School; King's College London - The Dickson Poon School of Law

Date Written: December 30, 2014

Abstract

It is more or less common ground that an important aspect of the explanation of normativity relates it to the way Reason (our rational powers), reasons (for beliefs, emotions, actions, etc.) and reasoning, with all its varieties and domains, are inter-connected. The relation of reasoning to reasons is the topic of this this paper. It does not start from a tabula rasa. It presupposes that normativity has to do with the ability to respond rationally to reasons, and with responding to reasons with the use of our rational powers. The question is where does reasoning fit in?

I will compare two sketchy accounts of reasoning, judging their success in elucidating the concept and its role in the explanation of normativity. First I outline the view that reasoning is an activity of searching for a justified answer or for a justification of the answer to a question. Some critical reflection on that view leads to what I call the simple account, which takes reasoning to consist (broadly speaking) in responsiveness to perceived reasons. I will illustrate ways in which the simple account is at odds with the concept of reasoning. Its merits depend on the thought that intentions, attempts or actions can be conclusions of reasoning. Those who affirm that possibility often regard reasoning that has such conclusions as practical reasoning. Hence much of the paper will be about practical reasoning. That would lead to a tentative endorsement of reasoning as a search for a justified answer, suggesting a different view of the place of reasoning in explaining normativity.

Note: THE REVISION is quite extensive. Many mistakes were eliminated, matters that I now regard as marginal has been removed and the paper is considerably shorter. The main difference, and I hope improvement is in its last section, which contains an argument for the revised view of the nature of reasoning. Those who downloaded the earlier version are asked to junk it. REVISION OF 30 APRIL 2015: The main difference is the addition of an extended argument (starting p. 19) supporting the view that actions and intentions are not the conclusions of reasoning. This is a prepublication paper of the article that is now published in Philosophical Issues, 25 Normativity 2015.

Keywords: Reasoning, Normativity, Practical reasoning, Reasons, Rationality, Dancy

Suggested Citation

Raz, Joseph, Normativity: The Place of Reasoning (December 30, 2014). King's College London Law School Research Paper No. 2015-08, Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 14-434, Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 3/2015, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2543834 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2543834

Joseph Raz (Contact Author)

University of Oxford - Faculty of Law ( email )

St. Cross Building
St. Cross Road
Oxford, OX1 3UJ
United Kingdom

HOME PAGE: http://josephnraz.googlepages.com/home

Columbia University - Law School ( email )

435 West 116th Street
New York, NY 10025
United States

HOME PAGE: http://josephnraz.googlepages.com/home

King's College London - The Dickson Poon School of Law ( email )

Somerset House East Wing
Strand
London, WC2R 2LS
United Kingdom

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
1,088
Abstract Views
5,730
Rank
37,263
PlumX Metrics