In “Reasons as Evidence” and “Reasons: Explanations or Evidence?”, Daniel Star and I argue that a normative reason to A is evidence that one ought to A. In “Reasons”, John Broome argues that a normative reason to A is (part of) an explanation of why one ought to A (this characterisation is only rough). What both analyses have in common is that reasons are analysed in terms of oughts and not vice versa. I just wanted to ask what people think the prospects are for analysing oughts in terms of reasons. Here are a few natural ways to do this:

This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0.