Reasons as premises of good reasoning

Many philosophers have been attracted to the view that normative reasons are premises of good reasoning – that for some consideration to be a normative reason to ? is for it to be the premise of good reasoning towards ?-ing. However, while this reasoning view is indeed attractive, it faces a problem accommodating outweighed reasons. In this paper, I argue that the standard solution to this problem is unsuccessful, and propose an alternative, which draws on the idea that good patterns of reasoning can be defeasible. I conclude by drawing out some implications of the resulting view for the debate over pragmatic reasons for belief and other attitudes and one influential form of reductionism about the normative