Many philosophers maintain that neither one’s reasons for action nor well-being are ever grounded in facts about what we desire or favor. Yet our reasons to eat a flavor of ice cream we like rather than one we do not seem an obvious counter-example. I argue that there is no getting around such examples and that therefore a fully stance independent account of the grounding of our reasons is implausible. At least in matters of mere taste our “stance” plays a normative role in grounding reasons.

Check out the latest at PEA Soup

CV

I'll eventually figure out something cool besides a picture of my dog to put in this space, you watch.

Want still more Sobel stuff? Too bad weirdo!