Philosophical Studies

, Volume 139, Issue 1, pp 57–71 | Cite as

Having reasons

  • Mark Schroeder


What is it to have a reason? According to one common idea, the Factoring Account, you have a reason to do A when there is a reason for you to do A which you have—which is somehow in your possession or grasp. In this paper, I argue that this common idea is false. But though my arguments are based on the practical case, the implications of this are likely to be greatest in epistemology: for the pitfalls we fall into when trying to defend the Factoring Account reflect very well the major developments in empiricist epistemology during the 20th century. I conjecture that this is because epistemologists have been—wrongly—wedded to the Factoring Account about evidence, which I conjecture is a certain kind of reason to believe.


Reasons Subjective Objective Bernard Williams Epistemology Evidence Basing 



Special thanks to Ned Block, Jim Pryor, Barry Lam, Gideon Rosen, Early Conee, Jeff Speaks, Mark Johnston, and the members of the Princeton University graduate student dissertation seminar, for helpful or stimulating comments or discussion.


  1. Armstrong, D. (1973). Belief, truth, and knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ayer, A. J. (1955). Foundations of empirical knowledge. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  3. Chisholm R. (1957). Perceiving: a philosophical study. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Conee, E., & Richard, F. (2004). Evidentialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dancy, J. (2000). Practical reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Lewis, C. I. (1946). An analysis of knowledge and valuation. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  7. McDowell, J. (1994). Mind and world. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Pollock, J. (1974). Knowledge and justification. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Russell, B. (1959). The problems of philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Schroeder, M. (2007). Reasons and agent-neutrality. Philosophical Studies, doi:  10.1007/s11098-007-9087-y .
  11. Williams, B. (1981). Internal and external reasons. In B, Williams (Ed.), Moral luck (pp. 101–113). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.USC School of Philosophy, University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations