PRACTICAL DELIBERATION AND BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ON NORMATIVE REASONS FOR ACTION

This paper concerns accounts of normative reasons for action that distinguish between the content of a reason and its "background conditions" (the explanation of why it is a reason). Such accounts sometimes appeal to this distinction to try to avoid what I will call "problematic thought objections". These objections reject some accounts of normative reasons because (they claim) those accounts allow agents to have thoughts or motivations that a well-functioning practical reasoner ought not or cannot have (e.g., thoughts about her desires). These "problematic thoughts" concern the targeted account's explanation of why reasons are reasons, so accounts that distinguish between reasons and background conditions can attempt to avoid these objections by claiming that thoughts about background conditions are not part of practical deliberation. I argue that this response fails because it is possible for a well-functioning practical reasoner's motivation by a normative reason to include a recognition of its background conditions even if the reason itself does not. A well-functioning practical reasoner's motivation by a normative reason may include motivation by the recognition that her reason (at least partially) justifies her action. This recognition may include an understanding of the background conditions on reasons. if this is right, it suggests a constraint on accounts of normative reasons: an account must be such that a practical reasoner can be moved by thought about its explanation of the nature of normative reasons without thereby becoming less well-functioning.