Reasons Primitivism and Epistemic Expressivism

Abstract

I discuss Michael Smith’s recent case against the idea that the concept of a normative reason is unanalysable. Smith argues that, as a matter of conceptual fact, some fact, p, can only be a reason to believe that q, given that p provides evidence for the truth of q, and that this is best explained by the concept of a reason for belief being analysable in evidential terms. Given, then, that the concept of a reason is not a “ragbag,” reasons primitivism fails quite generally. I propose that reasons primitivists can make sense of this evidential constraint on reasons for belief if they adopt a suitable expressivist account of reasons judgements. I conclude by briefly considering a metaphysical version of Smith’s argument.