You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
Do Particularists Have a Coherent Notion of a Reason for Action?
Vol. 122, No. 4 (July 2012), pp. 763-772
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/666326
Page Count: 10
Preview not available
Selim Berker argues that particularists do not have a coherent notion of reasons for action because they cannot show that contributory reasons always contribute to overall reason or moral judgments in accordance with their valence. I argue that Berker fails to demonstrate that particularists cannot show this to be the case. He also wrongly assumes that they need to know this to be the case to legitimately speak of reasons for action. Furthermore, Jonathan Dancy’s account of practical reasoning explains how particularists can legitimately speak of reasons for action while claiming that reasons sometimes make contributions contrary to their valence.
© 2012 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.