ABSTRACT
If people’s normative judgments are typically not mere expressions of their pro-attitudes, but rather full-fledged beliefs to which their pro-attitudes are typically sensitive, then the question arises, how are the contents of these beliefs fixed, and the possibility emerges that Davidson’s triangulation argument might provide the answer. But Davidson’s argument commits him to a kind of realism about reasons, and in many critics’ eyes this rules it out from the start. They think realism about reasons is, if not perhaps quite literally unintelligible, then at any rate too implausible to be taken at all seriously.
