Reasoning with Reasons

Kieran Setiya and Jonathan Way separately contend that normative reasons, whether reasons for belief or reasons for action, are premises of good reasoning. I don’t disagree that an essential role that reasons play is that they are premises of good reasoning, but I disagree that in saying this we get at the essence of normative reasons. It makes good sense to ask for more information about the the realizer of this role. I argue that when we do this we are led to accept the view that reasons are evidence concerning what one ought to do (in the case of reasons for action), or ought to believe (in the case of reasons for belief). I will also raise some problems for the alternative, role-based accounts of reasons.