ABSTRACT
To make room for the idea that practical reasons can justify, however, requires de-linking doxastic justification from propositional, taking seriously a point made by Derek Piller that “logic is only indirectly related to theories of reasoning.” Thinking about tacit treating of evidential considerations as reasons for belief, ones that may even be explicitly disavowed, makes it even clearer that practical considerations cannot be ruled out as reasons for which one believes. When making the case practical reasons cannot be reasons for belief, “practical” is often used in a narrow sense to mean prudential or advantageous. To assess whether it is the case that there is a whole class of reasons on which beliefs cannot be based, we need some understanding of the basing relation. It is important to note that many who are concerned with understanding the basing relation are trying to understand it quite generally.
