Raz Rethinking Exclusionary Reasons Are reasons for action reasons for conformity or reasons for compliance.

. Compliance: If you fail to comply you are at fault? Conformity: Reasons are merely guides for behavior lie the Michelin guide to Paris. You may use it and you have reason to use it but your do not have to. There are three reasons to believe that reasons for action are merely reasons to conform. 1) 2) 3) You may base your beliefs on something other than reasons. There is no fault in doing so. There is nothing wrong in not being aware of reasons which are overridden or defeated. Omissions. I did not kill him because I was not inclined to kill him. My failure to kill was not motivated by the fact that it is wrong to kill.

These observations support the view that reasons are reasons for conformity, not compliance. Furthermore, you love your children out of love for them, not out of love for the moral law. This further suggests that reasons are reasons for conformity only. Exclusionary Reasons So far, Raz has shown that reasons are merely legitimate guides to action. An exclusionary reason merely requires us to avoid something which other reasons make legitimate, but do not require. The point of an exclusionary reason is to exclude acting for another consideration which is a valid reason for acting. i.e. A religious fast. The point is that we forgo what we value and have reasons to pursue. Exclusionary reasons are second-order reasons because they are reasons about how to relate to other reasons. Conflicts of Reason The reasons for an action are considerations which count in favour of that action. Other things being equal, they are sufficient grounds for taking the action. If you do not take action, these reasons are grounds for finding fault with your conduct Conflicting reasons may ultimately defeat the reasons they conflict with but they do not create exceptions to them. Rules have exceptions. Reasons do not have exceptions.

Cancelling facts relate to the reasons that they cancel. Conflicting reasons are independent considerations which point to the desirability of the non-performance of the action. Exclusionary reasons do not compete they always prevail. The very point of exclusionary reasons is to bypass issues of weight by excluding consideration of the excluded reasons regardless of weight. Their function is to escape the linear comparison of reasons and create a separate stratification alongside the ordinary one. Exclusionary reasons and rules Legitimate authorities have the right to issue directives within the sphere of its jurisdiction. The protected reason account pays attention to the reason for having an authority in the first place. The common account concentrates on the way an authoritys ruling affects ones reasons. The attitude of people who accept the legitimacy of an authority is one of reasoned trust. We rely on them rather than on our own independent judgment this brings benefits. A possible dilemma If the rule is supported by reasons, then the rule is redundant. But if the reasons contradict the rule, then the rule is unjustified. Raz says rules can only function as rules if one takes them as reasons for action and avoids trying to comply with underlying reasons. Therefore, all rules are exclusionary reasons. Justificatory arguments There are advantages in having authorities. Firstly, concentrated expertise helps us overcome common ignorance. Secondly, it helps ensure co-ordination. Thirdly, it assures everyone that others co-operative behavior is likely. Therefore, everyone has reason to follow the authoritys objectives rather than judge for oneself. Parents, teachers etc are all role players and thus recognize the validity of certain exclusionary reasons. Exclusionary reasons therefore explain why rules are not redundant or unjustified. Weak effort 197 199.