Premium
Motivation, Reconsideration and Exclusionary Reasons *
Author(s) -
HATZISTAVROU ANTONY
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
ratio juris
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.344
H-Index - 10
eISSN - 1467-9337
pISSN - 0952-1917
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-9337.2012.00516.x
Subject(s) - order (exchange) , context (archaeology) , function (biology) , exclusionary rule , balance (ability) , epistemology , psychology , law and economics , law , sociology , political science , economics , philosophy , paleontology , supreme court , finance , evolutionary biology , neuroscience , biology
What do exclusionary reasons exclude? This is the main issue I address in this article. Raz appears to endorse what I label the “motivational” model of exclusionary reasons. He stresses that within the context of his theory of practical reasoning, exclusionary reasons are reasons not to be motivated by certain first‐order reasons (namely, the first‐order reasons which conflict with the first‐order reasons that the exclusionary reasons protect). Some of his critics take him to be committed to another model of exclusionary reasons which I label the “consideration” model. According to this model exclusionary reasons are reasons not to consider or think of the conflicting first‐order reasons. I argue that Raz's account of the exclusionary function of decisions suggests a third model of exclusionary reasons which I label the “reconsideration” model. In the reconsideration model, exclusionary reasons are reasons not to reconsider the balance of first‐order reasons. In this article I show how the reconsideration model differs from both the motivational and the consideration model and how it can account for the exclusionary function not only of decisions but also of personal rules and authoritative directives.