ABSTRACT
This chapter explores the relationship between praxiological and "reasons for action" (RFA) approaches as an instance of a broader contrast, explains by the conflict over whether metaethical considerations are relevant to first-order ethical concerns. It reviews the basic differences between praxiology and RFA. The RFA approach, presupposes recognition of the possibility of initially adopting an internal perspective on rationality per se, and an internal perspective on action per se, prior to any philosophical inquiry into how far these two perspectives might correspond to, overlap with, or diverge from one another. Whereas praxiology analyzes action against the background of a conception of something that, assuming human agency as an unconditionally given fact, counts as unconditionally good, RFA focuses on treating agency and moral-psychological concepts as starting points for debating how far human beings are free of the constraints of the natural world.
